THE WEAKER (?) SEX.

New Zealand Mail, 30 December 1892, Page 14

THE WEAKER (?) SEX.

It would seem that clever woman has so played upon man's pity with the phrase, ' the 'weaker sex,' that at last she has secured from him a position stronger than his own. This is true of her position in law, at any rate, as an amusing skit in Law Notes reminds us. Edwin and Angelina are off upon their honeymoon, and Edwin rejoices aloud that at last they are ' one person, one heart, one mind? one purse.' His joy is short-lived for Angelina is an LL.B., and, of course, she reminds him that, under the Married Woman's Property Act, 1882, all her property is her own, and she is an heiress. But by ' kicks or kisses,' Edwin suggests he can obtain his share. Far from it, for from kicks the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878, will protect her by an order in the nature of a judicial separation, and from kisses—well, she would simply leave him if he indulged in such foolish and reprehensible familiarities. Jackson v. Jackson has decided that a wife can leave her husband at will. ' Sauce for the goose,' retorts Edwin. * No, dear,' interrupts his learned wife, ' not sauce for the gander. You are forgetting the Maintenence in Cases of Desertion Act, 1886.' She was but too right; a wife may desert her husband, a husband may desert his wife. If he does, Bunhill v. Bunhill gives her the right to follow him and break into his house. If she leaves him there is Weldon v. "Weldon blocking his way to an action for restitution of conjugal rights. Moreover, Edwin's income, which is S>loo a year, and Angelina's which is .£IOOO, are assessed together for income-tax, and the husband is primarily liable for it. As for the money, however, that Edwin lent Angelina before marriage, when she had not come into her inheritance and milliners' bills were heavy, that is irrecoverable now that the bond is tied, for Butler v. Butler confirmed the law that marriage extinguishes pre-existing liabilities between husband and wife. And finally, when Angelina slanders Edwin's pretty cousin, he may be made a party to her post-nup-tial torts, as decided by the famous case of Seroka v. Kattenberg. •In fact, Schopenhauer understated the case from a lawyer's point of view when he said that a man who marries halves his rights and doubles his duties. And it must have been a legal laureate of the nursery who sang ' Needles and pins, needles and pins, when a man's married his trouble begins.' Why marry ? is the obvious question, but the answer to that is hidden in a depth so remote that all the other problems of human nature will be solved first.

The Daily News Vienna correspondent telegraphs : —An amusing ca3e was before the Vienna Court the other day. A dressmaker declared she had been bitten by the dog of a well-to-do neighbour, which was running about the streets without a muzzle. The dog's mistress declared that Vanus—that is the name of her pet—never crossed the threshold without its muzzle, so the proceedings were adjourned that the culprit might be sent for and identified by the plaintiff. About an hour later the lady appeared with a small, fat pug in her arma. The dressmaker no sooner saw it than she exclaimed excitedly, '' Yes, that is the spiteful little beast. I recognise it perfectly." Asked whether she had no doubt, she looked at the dog closely and repeated her assertion with great determination. The defendant then declared that this little dog was not Venus at all, but a pet of her sister's, which had arrived from Prague but the day before, and said that Vonus was waiting outside in the arm 3of a friend. A clever neighbour had advißed her to bring a strange dog in first to test the plaintiff's charge. Venus, who is a beautiful King Charles, and his mistress walked triumphantly out of court.