Litchfield enquirer., 1870-03-03

it), three forms of remedy are open to him: :: 1. He may seize her person wherever he finds it.* 2. He may sue out writ of habeas corpus compelling those conoealing her to produce her in court, whereupon she will be delivered into his custody.t 3. He may bring civil suit against those ad- vising her flight. or harboring her after wards with knowledge of the facts. i Nor are these rights antiquated and obsolete They have the full support of the best writ CTS on Con necticut law,s they have been enforced by decisions of our court of high est resort, and by late decisions in ad- joining states.f So that, by. law, a married woman would seem to remain still in very much the same condition she was when Blackstone mentioned three cases in which assistance might be safely rendered her; Ca stranger might carry her behind him to market, to a justice of the peace for a war rant against her husband, or to the spirit ual court to sue for 8 divorce" (3. Bl.
 
 The authority of the husband as the le- gal custodian of the person of the wife is so absolute. and in general so undisputed, that cases regarding it are not of so fre- quent occurrence in the books as those concerning their respective rights of prop erty. Hence, in order to show how con- pletely the law will, in case of necessity. vindicate that authority, we have cited ju- dicial decisions and legal opinions much more fully than we intend doing on other branches of the subject.
 2.-1Hs husbands right 0 lhs serpicss of he eoJe. .....-... ...... ..f
 Whatever the wife earns in the service of the husband belongs to him absolutely. Whatever she earns in the service of oth- CTS vests in him under the law regulating property coming from any other source. (Rev. Stats. 3O3, Sec. 19.) "In general, whatever she earns, she earns as his ser want, and for him; for in law, her time, and her labor, as well as her money, ,are his property. (Pars. Cont. 345.)
 That the parent should be entitled to the services of a minor child is eminently just; he only receives quid pro quo. In point of fact, the child earns it's father, on an av- craze, far less than it costs him, from the time of it's birth till it arrives at majority Such is not the case with the wife. Most Connecticut women marry at maturity, and spend the prime of their lives in the ser vice of their husbands. .At the risk of their lives, and often to the ruin of their health, they bear them children. Over those children they have no legal control, except such delegated power as their hus- bands choose to allow. They work more hours per day than the hired servant, and were that labor recompensed as the labor of women other than wives is recompen-
 *tsThe husband" :" says Lord Mansfield, s'has in consequence of his marriage, right to the custo- violates his right, and he has right to seize her wherever he finds her." Burr. 991. s..
 We infer from the case of Le.ois vs Ponsford 6 c P. 5S6) that husband would be justified even in forcibly entering the premises of a third person to get possession of the person of wife harbored there. ...... ....g.l .. ..,,.
 f Unless husband has formally renounced his marital rights by deed or otherwise, he can seize or obtain habeas corpus to obtain possess ion of the person of his wife. Stephens N P. 731. See cases there cited. .y............., ..-.
 But it was decided in Paige, Oh. A. that where the wife is living apart from her husband, openly and without restraint, an act of habeas corpus will not be granted.
 l By an old statute of Edward l., the person 80 interfering was liable to fine and imprisonment 6 Bl. Com. 1891.
 ssThe old law was 80 strict on this point" says Blackstone, "that if ones wife missed her way upon the road it was not lawful for another man to take her into his house unless she was benight ed or in danger of being lost or drowned. In Winsnaore .vs, Greenbank, (Willes 577). the husband recovered s3OOO damages against the defendant who harbored and concealed the wife and advised her not to return to him. The Court say, d. .- @~ a- .a a.
 'Every moment that wife continues absent from her husband (without justifiabe cause) with out his consent, is new tort, and every one who persuades her to do so, does new injury, and cannot but know it'
 s'It seems to be we'll settled that If wife elope and go away from her husband without cause, the husband may seize upon her person and bring her home." Reeves Domestic Relations, 66.
 "The husband has power and dominion oyer his wife, as he is responsible for her actions; he may control, regulate and restrain her conduct, and keep her by force within the bounds of duty, and under due subjectlon and subordination.' Swift's Dig, 40. = Illa. sla .#a,.l,1 ', In Sha,o vs. Shaw, decided in this county in 1S45, the Court say, end .a .,.4t.a 't-.-i Hsss-
 'sAgain, influenced by the same evil passion [jealousyl the defendant has been unwilling that his wife should visit even his own mother and her mother-iu-aw, and other friends, and has for bidden such intercourse; and once he turned the mother-in-law out of the house, and .forbade has acJe to ledue the house. 4 as.4 < F ''This conduct is certainly harsh, if not cruel; but, as the husband has right to say who shall be admitted to his house, and in some measure to s.ot daa,c Hne by ichich las authority can be re- strained"
 E TIn late New York case (Sta,p vs. Szadiczky, 4E. D. Smith 11O) verdict of $10.O00 was ren- dered against the person who enticsd away the plaintiffs wife, although no crina. con. was charg ed.
 We find the following notes of the very late case of Barnes vs Allen (30 Barb. 66s) in Waits Digest:
 "Aid. shelter and protection may be lawfully 4rendered by A stranger upon the appliCation and