Shanghai, 8th June. Before G. Jamtrsox, Eaq., Assistant Judge.
Lvcas Lestte.
This was a claim against Mrs. Leslie to recover the amount of bron ory note for $125, to which she and her husband attached their signatures in Hongkong in June, 1889, $75 of which had xe been paid. There was a clause in the note that if there was any default in the payment ut the monthly instalment f $15 the whole amount would become recoverable at law.
Mr. Harold Browett appeare! fur the defendant and said he had a legal defence he dai Mr. J. S. Lucas, sworn, said—T produce the promissory note. I gave Mrs, Leslie this $125 in cash. The other name on the note is that of her husband, as she bring a married woman I did not like to lend her the money unless her husband put his name down also, as n guarantee. I lent and he was the guarantee. I have sine got back $75. There are two stamps on the paper, one for Inca, Leslie, and the other for her husband as h Leslie, who was sworn, depas. ed—I was married in Hongk October, 1883. Noneofthen in the note was paid to me my husband to pay his debts. was paid $100, the balance, $25, being kept by Mr. Lucas in respect of a' former Joan which my husband had had of hi Mr. Lucas la a money-lender. My husband had borrowed money from him' only ones fore. I had no property whatever wh Tsigned th 1 because my husband, being on an ocean going steamer, Mr. Lucas said he was not sure of finding him, but he could find me at any time. Tt was a matter of conveni My husband is uow in the Western Ti ary, Glasgow, and las not supported me for twenty-one mouths.
Mr. Browett, on behalf of his client, set up the defence that under the Married Woman's Property Act of 1882, a married woman could not be held responsible for any contract entered into by her—in fact could nut make any contract—if she was not possessed. of free, separate property at the time the contract was entered Ha quoted " number of cases in support of this view, including the well-known case of Pallister " Gurney D. 19 Q.B.D.. p. 519, and x case which exrried the principle still further, nonicly the case Braunstein v Lewis, 64 Law Times, p. 260, wherein it is laid down that a married woman could not enter into a. contract with respect to or to bind her: separate estate which is subject to restraint upon He als" cited the case in re speare Deacon 169, in which it wes held that she could not contract in respect of a reversionary interest on property she might afterwards become possessed of, and submitted that his client could not be sued, but that the plaintiff had his remedy against her husband, The onus probandi lay upon plaintiff to show the defendant had said the view put forward was new to hin, hut there was no getting over the authorities Mr. Browett had given. He thanked Mr. Browett for bringing the point so clearly tw his notice. (lw the plaintiff) Do you understand all this Phe plaintiff did not quite seem to see it.
His Honour—It means that Mrs. Les being " mar had property of her own at the tin satisfy it. [twas given in evidence that had "no property xt the time, The look fo the has bund for it, ie is not liable.
The plaintift—Will you give me judgment against her husband His Honcur—I will be very happy if you ing him here. The case is a
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.