Barrister on Domestic Rights

Manawatu Times, Volume LV, Issue 7199, 23 April 1930, Page 13

Barrister on Domestic Rights

A Wife May

■ N the good old times, not long ago, when parsons were the sole judges in causes and matters matrimonial, the things of any importance which a wife might do could have been tabulated and remembered in a moment. Since the most fruitful cause of litigation was transferred to the secular courts the legal enfranchisement of women has developed so rapidly and extensively that* wives may now, broadly speaking, do what they please; not only what men may do, but many things with impunity which, if perpetrated by a husband, would involve dire consequences for him. In a word, wives may now do lawfully and directly acts which the best of them formerly did indirectly and without caring overmuch about manmade laws.

The remarkable things which wives may do, some of them obviously impossible for the unmarried and the widow, result mainly from two current legal theories, (1) that husband and wife are not two persons, or (2) that husband and wife are not one person, but two persons. Out of the theory of unity flowed secondary doctrine of great legal influence, namely, that the new persona resulting from marriage was mainly masculine, the female ingredient being, for most legal purposes, negligible. Enticing a Husband

In accordance (mainly) with one or other of these doctrines a wife may do the following things: l . .■/”

She may pledge her husband’s credit for “necessaries." The quality of “ necessaries ” will vary according to the financial and social position of the husband. An evening "creation” at 100 guineas may be a necessary for one wife. A mackintosh with a woollen lining may not be so for another. If the man is cruel she may leave him; if he commits adultery she may leave him and

divorce him, and he must still keep her. She may sue another woman for

enticing him away. This was once supposed to be a lost cause but Lord Darling (then Darling, J.) declared its existence in 1923. She may keep her own earnings; her own property real and personal, including the gifts of her husband. She may go into business on her own account; and while her separate estate will be liable for business debts, a bankruptcy order cannot be issued against her, nor can she be impris-, oned for non-payment of the debt. She may sue her husband for breach of contract. She may keep his name after divorce. She may harbour him after he has committed a felony run no risk of a charge. She may beat and maltreat him without being liable in a civil action for damages. She may say the most scandalous things to him about her neighbour and no action for slander will lie. Man and wife are one, and it is not publication if you talk to yourself.

A Husband May ■

HONSIDER how a husband stood in the spacious days of the Virgin Queen and for many a long day before and since. The law looks upon the husband and wife as but one person, 'says Bacon, and therefore allows but one will between them, which is placed in the husband as the fittest and ablest to provide for and govern the family, says a barrister writing in the “Daily Mail.” Therefore by law the husband hath power and dominion over his wife. He may keep her by law within the bounds of duty. He may beat her; but not in a violent and cruel manner. Perhaps Bacon had in mind the fabulous rod, no thicker than a husband’s thumb, which for so long was regarded as the standard instrument of husbandly correction. An unrecognisable remnant of these despotic powers of the husband still remains and it required some nerve when 90 years ago Coleridge J., in Mrs. Cochrane’s case, declared that the law, even in his day placed the wife under the guardianship of the husband and entitled him, for the sake of both, to protect her from the danger of unrestrained intercourse with the world by enforcing cohabitation in a common residence.

Although, as seen in a recent case, he has still some shadow of power in that respect, and may decide where the common house shall be, his means of enforcement are strictly limited. Moreover, the wife, as indicated in an earlier article.

can take drastic legal measures if the husband’s intercourse with the world, the flesh and the devil is too unrestrained. There are other things that a husband may still do. A Clothes If she leaves him without just cause, he, may obtain an unenforces ble order for restitution of conjugal rights. He may bring an action for damages against any man or woman who lms -/rnnfrfnllv do-

nas vrongiuny deprived him of her society or services. He may leave her, without himself being guilty of desertion, if she commits adultery; or otherwise makes life too hot for him.

He may refuse to allow her to pledge his credit, even for “necessaries,” if he makes her a sufficient allowance.

He may (while he must provide her with proper clothes, food, and medical attendance) decide whether the necessary warmth shall be provided by a fur coat or a woollen vest.

He may, unless he has authorised the expenditure, refuse to pay his wife’s "extravagant” bills. The jury will decide the question of extravagance. He may decide the number of the domestic staff and their salaries; he may engage them and dismiss them (if he dare) in his wife’s despite. If he does not Interfere, her doings with servants are deemed to have done by her as his agents, with his authority.