Litchfield enquirer., 1870-03-03

responsibility on her part. and he only will be punished for them. She will be acquitted in snch case. unless # is proved afirmatively, that she acted of her own free will and not under his direction. Should a married woman be prosecuted and convicted of crime, her husband is not liable for payment of fine or costs (Batss vs. Earigh 42 Me. IT ); and it would seem that he would not be liable for the expense of her defence, even if he himself instiga- ted her prosecution.* e- .-.g.s.ag
 4.-IHe unequal rorovisions for enforcing Me respsaius dstiss of hssband and sOfs.
 It is entirely characteristic of the exist. ing law of marriage that while the most ar- bitrary authority is given the husband to secure the legal obligations on the part of the wife, no corresponding care is taken to ensure performance of the duties of the marriage covenant on his part
 In case the wife leaves the husband for cause not justifying divorce, not only may he seize her by force or by legal process. not only may he prosecute the friends who harbor her, but he has a terrible ally in her condition of utter poverty and destitu- tion. All her property remains in his hands and cannot be removed without his consent. If she attempt to earn other property, or secure salaried position, he can seize that property and demand that salary, notwithstanding his own liability for her support has ceased. On the other hand, the legal provisions to secure the wife the society of the husband, are absurdly inadequate. If he is rich enough to afford her 8 sepa. rate maintenance. he may pension her of at any moment he sees fit. The English reports are full of decisions arising under this practice.t If he is poor enough, ol cunning enough, to have no property with in reach of the sheriff, his duty of main tenanoe practically ceases, since it cannot be enforced. Should she be totally aban. doned, indeed, the wife recovers her inde- pendsnce (Rev. Stats. BOA. Sec. 24, ,25); but the shiftless husband who lives upon the services of ths industrious wife still enjoys his full marital authority over her person and property. 1.-~-* .4.s~s,4 -~ 2...-.
 It will be seen hereafter that the hus- bands right of curtesy, i. G., to the use oi all the wife's real estate for life (provided they had living issue) is secured to him absolutely; while the wife's right of do,ee, 1. G., to the use tor life of one third her de ceased husbands real estate, may be easily defeated by his conversion of that estate into personal property, during his lifetime, without her consent. In like manner the husband has the use of all the wife's per. sonal estate during his life, whatever hel will may be (Rsv. Stats. BOA, Sec. 20. J; while he has the power to cut her off by will from her distributory share in his per. sonal estate. -- ,t a.@. -.- a--s.f 4 ,...
 But the grossest inequality occurs in case of violation of matrimonial duty or the part of the husband or wife. If sht commit adultery, he may have her impris oned from two to five years in the Stat. Prison (Rev. Stats. 265); he may procure { divorce; or he may turn her out of doors without being liable for her support. No will the fact that he has himself been gull ty of like crime affect his right to discard the wife, and refuse her maintenance, al though under such circumstances neithe, party would be allowed 8 divorce, 1t wa decided in the case of GoUier vs. !Hancock { (6 Tenn. 6o8) that even where | the bus band had introduced Q mistress into his fam lily and driven out the wife, her subsequen adultery would absolye him from further Ii
 ability for her support. If the husband on the other hand, is incontinent (unles the wife of some other man is involyed), h. can only be punished by q fine of sever dollars or by thirty days Imprisonment il the common. jail (Rey. Stats. ,266). Hi wife may obtain a divorce. or she may leav' him without divorce; but in the latte event he will still be entitled to the custo dy of her children, and of her property even of what she may subsequently, earn and she will still be unable to make con tracts or do business as an unmarried wo man. Unless divorced, her only right will be that of bare maintenance, to be enforced by suits, as for ordinary debts, on the part of those furnishing her such mainte- nance. .f u...t..4. ..i. .l...t. , ...4. | One of the greatest legal advantages oi husband over wife, in case of difference ol litigation between them, consists in his possession of all the property of both par l i s.t. 5 tsSi5f.4 .+'i5t54sCt i5!fH h1fit 4 s
 l *The only Conn. case we have found directly ir point is that of Shelton Ys. Hoady (15 Conn. 5s5) Here wife was complained of by her husband fol violent conduct and imprisoned on her failure tc procure suretiss of the peace. Her attorney sued her husband for his fees, and the Superior Court decided against his claim. The Supreme Court gave no opinion on the merits of the case. 1t . ..
 1.-The following extract from deed of separate maintenance which we find in Le,ris vs. Pongord 8 0. < P. 5S6) shows the kind of agreement usu- allv made and enureratAs very carefully EhA mar.