From Our Own Correspondent, London, May 6.
No woman can_ ignore the judgement given by Mr. Justice Me-Caudle, in the case of Earl Cath-cart and ai firm of Court dress makers, who sued him for £215 for eight dresses supplied to his wife before he divorced her last February, when the Earl of Craven was named as ce-respondent. Tit raised the whole question of the power of wives to pledge the credit of their husbands, and he thus summoned up the position for husbands when tradesmen raised the argument of "presumptive authority on the part of the wife' to order what she liked:— i.—The husband could negative his liability by proving that he express:
ly warned tradesmen not to supply goods on credit.
2—He could prove that his wife was sufficiently supplied with what.she needed.—He could prove that she had a saticient allowance.
4.—He could prove that he had expressly forbidden the order.
S&—He could prove that the order was excessive in point of intent.
All these "arguments weighed with the Judge who came to the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.