MARRIAGE IS MERGER OR THE SUBMERGER.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19108, 28 June 1930, Page 24 (Supplement)

MARRIAGE IS MERGER OR THE SUBMERGER.

Woman’s New Great Power And Soul Union Fiction Discussed. A remarkable discussion on marriage took place at Leeds Assizes recently between Mr Justice M Cardie, who is a bachelor, and Mr C. F. Frankland) a married barrister. The case was one in which the wife of Dr Harry Edelston, assistant medical officer of the West Riding Mental Hospital at Wakefield, sued her husband foe damages.

The action arose out of injuries received by Mrs Edelston, before she was married, in a collision between Dr Edelston’s motor-car and a horse and cart. The contention was that the accident was due to the negligence of Dr Edelston, who, it was alleged, dimmed his lights and drove down a hill at 25 miles an hour. As a result of the accident, Mrs Edelston had to have her left eye removed. Mr Frankland, for the husband, claimed that the action was barred by the Married Women’s Property Act. The parties, he said, were perfectly happily married, and the action was a claim against the insurance company. Three Grounds. Mr A. S. Diamond, for the wife, submitted that it was no longer true to say that husband and wife were one in law. Mr Justice McCardie'- A husband finds that maxim is false as soon as he murders his wife. Mr Frankland said the reason why a wife could not sue her husband, or the husband his wife, was not clear, but there appeared to be three grounds: In the eyes of the law, husband and wife, by the effect of -their marriage, become one person; While that could not be entirely true, the individuality of the wife became merged in her husband ; and The unseemly spectacle of a wife or husband suing the other. Mr Justice McCardie: Physically they do not become one on marriage. Mentally, as one knows from observation, they do not. Even the tempera>ments of people do not change on marriage, and so far as my own notice of married life goes, I see' few instances to support the theory of spiritual unity. What does your knowledge of human nature say, Mr Frankland? Mr Frankland: My experience is parallel with that of your lordship. Mr Justice McCardie: Are you married? Mr Frankland: I am.

Mr Justice McCardie: Then our ex* periences are not parallel. A 44 Fiction.’* Later Mr Justice McCardie said: There is in marriage, it would appear, no tnerger, physically, mentally, or spiritually. The parties each possess their own bodies; certainly in these days their own minds and their own souls Marriage is merely an agreement to live together for the procreation of children and the establishment of a home for the benefit of the nation. Mr Frankland: I admit the fiction. For even in the old days the wife kept her own body and mind and lost nothing but her estate. Mr Justice McCardie: Suppose, as in this case, the husband was negligent and liable before marriage and the wife lost her right to bring an action on marriage, what is the effect upon that right in the event of divorce? Is her right lost by the marriage merger, or is it in the bonds of marriage? Mr Frankland: In my view divorce would revive the right, subject, of course, to the Statute of Limitations. Women’s New Power. Mr Justice McCardie: Your argument is that on marriage there is a merger. If there is a merger how would dissolution of the marriage destroy that merger? Mr Frankland: Only by account of wKat might be called an immerger. Mr Justice McCardie: I should describe it as a submerger. There has been a complete change in the position of women during the last two or three decades. They have nower now as citizens. Mr Frankland: Some of the power, not all. Mr Justice McCardie: Women can sway the destinies of Empire, can even destroy this Empire. What would the married women of this country say in a case of this kind? Finally, Mr Justice McCardie said the point deserved full argument and consideration, and he would be pleased to hear the other side in London, when he would give his ruling.