New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-02-15

hou,- With more independence AID more Jre-
tight for herself snd her helpless children than
W men ALWAYS exhibit, she hsd, il seems, on for
mer OCCASION, defeated sale BY her husband Of the
hou,e over their heads, By rtfu'iDg to rele'ss her
dover. and abe persisted nOw in similr retlsai.
II was in vain that Ives pressed her, as be had De-
fore pressed her husband, telling her, according 70
her ,ts.ernent. that she was the frt woman he
ever saw who interfered with her husbands busl-
pe,,, that it slowed she vas afraid TO trust her
husband and that it was not Masking MAD OF hun.
Mrs. Hazard, who on the former occasion had phi
yst.ly consulted lawyer, understood perfectly
wen that her husband had no night, without her
consent, TO bargain away her right Of dover. h
nally, Hazard, who was present, told Ives ths. be
though, be had pressed the ma. er far enough; and
though Ives, % leaving, according to the wfes
account INDUCED in some angry threats, yet, as be
Id nothing further Ill after the lst Of September,
and as be omitted 10 pay up and take deed Of the
Armstrong lard on that day, there seems 10 be
reason to C. include that, owing 20 the obstnacy OF
Mrs.. Hazard, be bad re'ol'ed II let the whole
matter aide. Another fact would 60 TO confirm
this view, namely, that Hazard, having sold some
three acres Of this laid 20 his brother for house
lot, Ives permitted the purchaser TO take pos
session, fetce it, plant it with trees and shrdb',
build a barn, dig and stone a cellar, cistern and
well. and get the entire frame Of the house re,dy
fof putting up-all which work, except the house
framing, went on within few rods OF lyes's resi-
dence, ard under his constant ObserystioD-T without
any notification that the land was his.
But on Ives's return from Saratoga, on the
18th Of September, he became aware Of q state OF
tbDes we'll calculated to make him insist upon
both purchases. During the two months past the
value Of land in Newport had taken sudden start
which in a short time carried it up 70 qladruple
and more its iCrmer value. Of this rise Ives,
az be states in his pamphlet, was entirely ignorant
till his return from Saratoga, three days after
which be notified Armstrong of bis readiness 70
psy lin bis money and take his deed. But Arm
strong now refused on the ground that on the Let
Of September when be WAS ready 10 have COM
Piled with his bargain with Hazard, no money was
forthcoming. WhereupoD, within a week after,
equity suits were commenced by Ives against botn
Armstrong snd Hazard TO compel coDveyan,es OF
the land Hszards brother, and another party to
whom he had contracted to sell portion OF It be-
ing slso made parties to the suit against Hazard.
Arm,tIong, according 10 ore Of the pamphlets
before us-we DO not find any report Of the case
in the last published volume of the Rhode Island
Reports-afser some four years harrassment and
the expenditure OF more than y, 900 for counsel
fees slone-tbey seem 10 understand running up
law costs add protractng suits a. We'll IN Rhode
Island as elscwhere-escaped from this pursuit,
but in Hazards case the Court msde decree that
Hazard should be compelled TO give deed to lee',
and that, if the wife refused to relinquish
Der dover, a proportional reduction should
be made from the price. Hazard, ny this
time completely impoverished by Law eX-
penses, was incapable of further resistance, though
his wife msgnaDimously stood out and refused to
rebDquish her dover, wisely preferring TO retain
TIE chance, should che survive her husband, of
realizing handsome annuity out Ct the property,
which by this tine bad increased in value 10 a
hundred thousand dollars or more. At this
moment, however, another champion appeared
in the field, the author of two Of the pamphlets
10 which we referred at the begisniDg OF this
article-Hszard, also by naue-that name being
very common in Southern Rhode Island-but no
relation to the other Hazards. Apart from great
many minor criticisms on the whole conduct of the
case and the plaintiff, from beginning to end, tie
main ground taken against the decision appears to be
this: First, That the assumption Of ehsncery pow.
ers for the specific enforcement Of contracts was
usurpaton on the part of the Court, there being no
warrant for it in the Constitution and Laws Of
Rhode Island; and, SecoId, That even ifthe exist
ence Of such powers in the Court were admitted,
tie r.emoraI DUN obtained from Hazard by Ives,
aside from the objections TO il on the part Of
haste and surpTise, was not contract understood
alike by both parties and mutually binding on both,
but shrew6ly -wOrded instrument by which Ives,
without binding himself to any thing, sought to SCI
cure 10 bin,elf for ten months refusal of the LAID
az the price he had named-and, that being of such
a character, it Was not such contract as
Court of Equity ought 10 have lnforced but rather
one upon which the plaintiff ought TO have been
turned over TO bis action at Law and the verdict of
Jury. That part Of the decree 10 reference 10
the wife's dover is also strenuOusy objected TO,
and if would seem, with good reason. 1t ap-
peers to proceed upon the presumption that the
husband has right, without the wifes consent, to
bargain away her dover; that an agreement by
bin to eel, includes REIMBURSEMENT of rhe wife's
dover; ard upon the further presumption tina. the
wife is, if not legally, morally bound to carry into
effect any contract with respect TO her dover
which the husband may take upon himself or may
be persuaded TO make, though the other party be