The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1872-03-14
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

Gently been decided by the Court Of APP
peals in New York State which involves
Il novel and heretofore unsettled point so
Tar as that State is concerned. The
question arose as to whether or not the
title TO the paraphernalia of. q married
woman resides in her or her husband
The pIai tiff brought suit in her own
name to recover the sum IF 81, 900 for the.
loss Of clothing and jewelry occasioned
by az accident on the road belonging to
defendants the Pennsylvania Railroad
Company. The latter claimed that the
property having been received by the
plaintiff from her husband belonged to
him, and the suit should therefore have
been brought by him, and that the terms
Of the contractor tickct-limited the
Company's liability to 500 The
plaintiffs counsel claimed that
the property was hers both as
against her husband and ordinary crcdi-
tors, and that the carrier has no right to
limit his ii Utilities except by exprt IS
contract. The Court of Appeals, in af
firmiDg the judgment Of the courts be-
low, held, first, that though at common law
the wjfe's paraphernalia, during cover
ture. ordlu srily belonged to the husblnd,
and he can dispose Of them except by
will, the statutes have secured them to
her even as ag INST creditors. Ia equity
the property given would be treated as
the wife's separate estate, and she would
b. protected in its possession even
against the Interference of her husband.
So that this estate if not absolutely lie
gal estate, is clothed with all the powers
thereof, and she is THEREFORE the proper
| person to sue, Second, the words printed
on the tickle. do not by any means en-
body the contract between the parties.
Tney are simply mere notice, but only
by contract. The attention of the plain
tiff was not called to these words when
the ticket was purchased by her; and
even if she read them when she had COM
mencod her journey, she was not obliged
submit to a contract never made, or be
compelled to leave the train. Such in
substance was the decision rendered by
the court and which leaves the carriers
common law liability just where it was
b fore at least in the State of New Yolk.
-
MARRIAGE NoTIoE.-We have receiv-
Ell what purpo is to be marriage O ice
q Union Grove on the 18th, inst. by Rev
J. Watts, which wo do not publish Cor
; two reasons. 1. We cannot read the
Christian name of the groom, and can
o ~ make out the christian name Of the
Bride by determining what it could not
be, and then inferring what it could be.
Q We are not asked to publish the no
tlce
The writer of the notice is 3 good pen
nam and either carelessly or Intentionally
wrote the names of the groom and BRIDE
go that it is difficult if not impossible to
determine what they are intended to be.
Such illegibiliry is inexcusable in any
writing intended for publication, or even
t. be read
IF Rev. j. Watts or any other person
wants the marriage notices which he
furnishes published, he must, to secure it ,
write and ask their publication, and sub
scribe his name to the letter asking the
publication. This letter, subscribed by
the writer, is for our security, and not
for publication. IF some wag should
send US marriage notice, purporting to
be performed by Rev J. Watts, neither
he nor the parties whose names are men
toned in the marriage notice would be
very well satisfied with the publication
And, as we are not acquainted with the
hand writing of the marriage notice re
ceived from Union Grove, we have no
means of determining whether it is writ
ten by Rev. J. Watts in good faith, or
by some person desiring its publication
as take off Of Rev. J. Watts and the
PARTIES whose names are mentioned In
the marriage notice, and if the latter, we
have no authority for publishing it to
| fall back upon.
4 It is startling to reflect that the Epis.
! conaI church NAV be dividnd intnI ~