The Placer herald., 1856-12-27

at the expense of the Government OF Nc
aracua. and everything was done to anchor
ate their condition, for whicI letters of thanks
were received from all the prisoners, and the
Padre who came on the brig, gave them his
word that they all had a passport to happiness
in another world. The Padre died of his
wounds, and the most of the others are IN
fair way to recover They will return with
sad tale to their homes.
An Important Decision---The Rights OF
Married Women as Sole Traders.
State of Cul1oynia-District Court, 9th Ja-
dicial District.
Maria Rippstein cs. ". s. Vhite.-Upon
the trial of this case the jury returned YER
dict in favor of the plaintiff. A new trial
is asked for, on the ground that the verdict
is against the evidence and contrary to the
instructions of the Court.
The property in controversy was levied
upon by the defendant under and by virtue
of an execution issued in favor of kaspar
Thomas and against Jacob Rippsten. The
plaintiff, who is the wife of Jacob Rppstein,
claims that the property belongs to her. that
she is sole trader, and as such acquired it.
In the case Of Mary Jones vs. D. n. Hunt, |
commented briefly upon the act authorizing
married women to conduct business in their
own name, aud endeavored to call public at
tenton to the real intent and design Of the
act. | remarked that it was passed for good,
laudable and benevolent purposes, but resort
ed to- | feared, III too many cases, for the
purpose of concealing property and perpetra
TING wrong; that it was intended to protect
the honest and Industrious wife against an
improvilent, idle and worthless husband, to
save to her her earnings, the proceeds of her
labor and industry so as to enable her TO
support herself and clothe, feed, educate and
maintain her children; that it WAS not nten
ded to aid and assist husbands in concealing
their propertv-not intended to degrade the
husband into becoming the slave of his wife.
| held that, in order to prevent fraud, the
law would not suffer the wife to assume the
previous occupation and business of her hus-
band, and yet permit the husband to continue
in the management and conduct of it under
the assumed name OF agent; nor would it
suffer husband in embarrassed circumstan-
ces to furnish means to his wife to enable
her to carry on business as sole trader, and
so defeat the rights of creditors; that the hus-
band should be Just before he was generous
and that the statute had not changed this
rule of the common law.
The fact that a married woman declares
her intention of carrying on business un-
congenial, unbecoming and unsuted to a wo-
man, does Of itself afford prima tacie evi-
dence of some fraudulent intent Women
are rather unsuited for the hardware, black
smithing, carpenering and brckmaling bu
sness, yet we find, on reference to our public
newspapers, that they pretend to be engaged
in each and every one of these pursuits and
occupations, employing, as their agent, their
husbands, who previously carried on the same
business in their own names.
The law was not intended to aid and as
sst man wha had become unfortunate in
business The law was not passed for the
benefit of the husband; it was not enacted
for the purpose of saving to him or to his
wife his earnings and the proceeds of his la
bor 1t was only intended to enable the wife
to save for herself or children the results of
her own industry, to enable her to engage in
business, to build it up by her own energy,
by her own labor and work, not by that of
her husband. If he aids and assists her in
it-if it is a business in which he was pre-
vious y engaged-if he manages, supern-
tends and controls in the same manner as he
did when he carried it on in his own name,
it affords strong, if not conclusive, evidence
OF fraud. In my opinion, for the purpose of
preventing fraud, the husband ought not to
be permitted to interfere, to aid, assist, man
age or control in any way or manner the
business which the wife is conducting as a
sole trader no matter whether it is bust
ness in which the husband was previously
engaged or not; and am not prepared to
say that such is not the law. If it is rot
then the act opens wide door to fraud
and 1t should be either repealed or amended
If the husband can legally act as the agent
of his wife and superintend and manage a
business which she is carrying on as a sole
trader, very convenient way is afforded, and
without much chance of detection. for the
husband to conceal his property and avoid
the payment of his debts.
In this case, it appears from the evidence,
that Jacob Rippstein, about two years since,
kept public house few miles from this
city, known as the Tyvoi House. He became
unfortunate in business, and failed. Shortly
thereafter his wife declared her intention of
carrying on the business of farming, buying,
selling and raising stock; buying, selling and
trading in real estate; keeping hotel and
doing general trading-in most, if not in all,
of which occupations her husband had been
engaged previous to his failure. 1t does not
appear that the wife entered upon any of
these various pursuits until about May last,
as she had accompanied and remained in the
mines with her husband until about that