Litchfield enquirer., 1870-03-03

wife's services is her right to e decent maintenance in accordance with their con- dition in life. The law considers her enti- tied to necessary housing, food, drink, clothing and medicine. She may also have the services of 8 lawyer to have her husband put under bonds to keep the peace, if he beat her, or threaten to beat her; but not to have him fined GrindeH vs. Godn'ond, A. & B. 755), nor to procure divorce (Shelon vs. Pendleton, Is Conn. AID from him, for such abuse. -.s..
 Out of the husbands right to the wife's services grows his right of action in case of injury to the wife's person, wherein he may recover damages for loss of SGT vice and for attendance and medicine supplied during her illness. It is also upon this supposed loss of service that the husbands right of action for the seduction, for the enticing away, or for the harboring of his wife. is grounded. But although in such cases the loss of service forms the ground of action, it does not limit the amount of damages. Heavy "vindictive" damages are allowed the husband for the presumed injury to his feelings, loss of the wife's so. oiety, &c. ...... .. ....... ..s. .-4-
 3.-1He aOye is 6y laso disabled from pro- tecting Ger own interests. ..1.
 The husbands absolute control over the person of the wife is further secured by her legal inability to become party to any contract whatsoever. When living with the husband, and managing his house. hold, the law implies an agency, by virtue of which she can make contracts on his be- half for household supplies. Should he become dissatisfied with her management, however, he can at any time terminate this implied agency and stop his liability, by giving notice to the parties with whom she is in the habit of dealing;* so that the common impression that wife can persist in running her husband in debt contrary to his wishes, is mistake. The inability, to contract is more complete in tue case of married women even than in that of mi- nors. The contracts of the latter may be ratified on their coming of age, whereas those of the former are absolutely void The practical result of this disability is to make it impossible for wife to engage or continue in any business without the hus- bands consent, and greatly trammels hex action even where such consent is given. It is upon this disability that the Supreme Court of Illinois founded their refusal to admit married woman to the practice of law, short time since. .... ......-a
 Not only can the wife make no contracts, and therefore undertake no business with. out the husbands consent, she cannot ev- en protect her person. her reputation, or her property by bringing suits for injuries to them. All such suits are brought in the names of husband and wife jointly, but she has no control over them, whatever; he uses her name, indeed, but may do so without her consent, or even contrary to her wishes. So entire is his authority over the matter that if he sees fit to use force for securing custody of her person or obe- dience to his commands, both he and his agents are screened from civil suit on her behalf About year since, husband procured the publication in newspaper in this county of notice charging his wife with adultery, and with having given birth to an illegitimate child. The publication was probably with view to blacken her character and facilitate his obtaining a divorce; nevertheless our law left her en- tirely without legal power to redress so fragrant an injury to her reputation. In fact the married woman's disability in this respect is more complete than that of the minor, who can sue by next friend.' .... .i'
 The damages recovered by the husband for injuries to the person, reputation and property of the wife, vested in him abso- lutely, at common law; but by our present statute only the use of the same would be- long to him, as in case of other property accruing to the wife during marriage. By 8 reciprocal provision of tue law, suits for injuries committed by the wife to the per- sons or property of others must be brought against husband and wife jointlysand the property or persons of both, or either, may be taken in satisfaction of judgment rendered against them on such suits. The courts of Connecticut are less liberal than those of England to the wife when inn prisoned on civil process. The latter dis charge the wife on motion, if she has no property; whereas by our practice she must suffer confinement and procure her release like any other imprisoned de- fendant. (HaH vs. Whits 27 Conn. 495.)
 For her criminal acts married woman is alone liable The control the husband is supposed to exercise over the wife is so great, however, that all crimes (except treason, murder, and keeping a house of ill .fame), committed by her in his pres ence, are presumed to have been done un- der such coercion as to remove all moral