Litchfield enquirer., 1870-03-03
THE WEES PERSONAL sf1R1Ecr1oN

THE WEES PERSONAL sUBJEcrIoN.
 The legal rights of the husband to the custody of the person, to the strict obeai- ence, and to the services of the wife, are almost precisely the same that the father has to the custody, obedience, and servi- ces of his minor child. His duty of main. tenance is the same; and only the same gross misconduct which justifies the minor in repudiating the parental authority, or third persons in interfering in its behalf, will justify the wife in repudiating the marital authority, or her friends in inter- fering in her behalf ... ....,......... .<.
 1.-1he husbands right Co the custody Q, his Uye's person. 1..5.. .-5.. l..s s.....
 The husband has thesole right to choose the place of residence, the manner of life, the social and even the religious connec- tions of the family-for the wife as we'll as for his children. Unless she have reason able ground to fear such personal violence as would constitute breach of the peace, or unless he is guilty of such misconduct as would entitle her to divorce, the wife may be compelled to reside with and obey her husband by the use Of force, by con. finement of her persont, by legal process if she attempts to escape, and by suits
 *In La,cre'ace vs. La,crence 6 Paige 27O) tht wife being member of the Presbyterian Church the husband, who had quarrelled with that church would not allow her to attend It. Chancellor Wal worth, in rendering the decision, says, .a. s..4a Although it was an act of great unkindnes and unreasonable oppression on the part of tn, husband to use his marital power in separating his wife from church of which she was member and with which she preferred to worship, havt no hesitation in saying hat she mistooE hes' dut, in not submitting 10 the oppressos."
 +'s There can be no question respecting the com mon law right of 8 husband to restrain his wife O her personal liberty, with aview to prevent he going into society of which he disapproves, O 0she,,0tse disooeying las rtghfM a,ahority."-- --1
 nthis point the decision Of Justice Coleridg, in re Cochrane ls Dowl. P. C., 6a2), is leading case. Mrs. Cochrane had left her husband in 1886 and resided abroad with her mother for fou, years, conducting herself with entire propriety. Obtaining possession of her person by stratagem he confined her to his house in England. She avowed her determination to leave him again or the arst opportunity, and the court decided tha, under such circumstances the husband was just. flied in keeping her in confinement. ., 1..,3
 "The. principle on which it 1.-the lawl proceeds is broad and comprehensive it has respect to the terms of the marriage contract and the iy,mity o1 the seq. For the happiness and honor of both par ties it places the wife under the guardianship oi the husband, and entities him for the sake oi both, to protect her from danger of unrestrained intercourse with the world, by enforcing cohabita. tionI and common residence. < IL is urged that am sentencing her to. perpetual i'm. prisonment: Cases of hardship will arise unde, any general rule, and so long as there are, unfort unately, iassorted unions, there will be cases in which wives will feel it hard to be compelled to reside with their husbands **...* ns. lf-.-, :.
 'sBut if there IS anything painful'ia the presen, state of things. she cannot properly complain o it, for it will arise from her own breach of duty and frankly resolve on performing the. eontrac Ishe has entered into. s.., - ''