MARRIED WOMEN.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 160, 9 July 1935, Page 6

MARRIED WOMEN.

The text is now published of the Government's Bill to amend the law relating to the property and liabilities of married 0 women (says the "Manchester Guardian"). The bill follows closely the recommendations of the Hanworth Committee, which in its interim report last December showed how a married woman has in some respects been legally placed so that she is not only better off than single and married men, but better off than an unmarried woman. In the first place, a husband is liable in law for her naked torts— that is, all torts not arising out of a contract. She may indiscriminately take away her neighbours' characters, and the unfortunate man has to pay the damages. Secondly, the institution of "separate property" for a married woman, a peculiar anomaly invented by the Court of Equity to protect trusts and settlements, often enabled her to escape bankruptcy. Thirdly, there existed for the well to do the "restraint in anticipation," another device originally intended to protect a woman from the machinations of her husband, but more effectually protecting her from her creditors. All these privileges are now to be abolished. There remains, therefore, of the Hanworth Committee's recommendations only the important suggestion that the provision of our income tax law whereby a husband has to pay taxes on the profits'of his wife's business should be altered. When that has been accepted a married woman who now boasts an equal share (at least so far as the law determines) of every right and franchise enjoyed by the married man wi.'J also properly be equally responsible for all *-ie liabilities wlrch derive from citizenshfi.