, 1873-03-30

band could, under these circumstances, be sued
for damagcs on account Of slanders uttered by bis
vito, and the victim could get judgment against
him. Justice Thornton holds that the ancient land
marks of tho conjugal relation have been effaccd
By tho statutes mentioned, and that man and wife
are now distinct entities in law. They may have
separate legal estates, contracts, debts, and in
juries. It IN simply the duty Of tho courts to
protect the Enactity Of the marriage relation, 30
that the statutes cannot bo construed as prac-
wife must appear separately, must sue md he
sued apart, and TINT neither Of them
can be hold liable for the torts Of tho other.
They remain bound by solemn contract
to mutual respect, to the samo house
hold, and to the same affection, forbearance, and
intimacy as heretofore. But rs tho wife may
now own her own furniture, her own books, her
own paintings, and her own coupon bonds; as
she may acquire her own real estate, and dispose
Of her own earnings; as she may 50 into busl-
ness on her own account, enter into partnership
with third party, and, in all legal matters, u.s.
sumo an Independent attitude; as she may enter
upon any INVOCATION in life in rivalry with hor
husband, it is hold that tho husband can no
longer bo accountable for her actions or re-
sponsible for injuries she may commit. Sho
must pay her own debts out of her own proper
ty, and she must suffer the consequences Of her
own s|an6e1s, her own assaults, and her own
batteries.
No ono will undertake to question the reason
abloncss and justice OF this decision. The Law
was provided IS protection for innocent and
hard-vorking women against the abuses Of
worthless husbands, that were possible under
tho old order Of things. It turns out that it also
acts as a. protection for innocent and hard-work
ing husbands against the acts Of reckless wives,
given to extravaganza and slander. The pro-
tcction in ono caao is quite as just as in the
other. There arc those who believe TINT it
would have boon bettor to preserve the identity
OF husband and wife in the close unity .of mar
riage according to common law, but they will bo
partially satisfied at Gndick3k to be judicialy de-
clAred that what is sauce for the
goose is likewise sauce for the gander.
A law similar to that prevailing in this
State FOR the protection Of married
women has been proposed in the British Parlia-
ncnt, but has been received with doubt and mig
giving. The English journals speak Of it as ah
effort to incorporate marriage under tho firm
namo and title of Man and Wife limited).
English notions are conservative. and in no
other relation moro SO than in that Of marriage.
They hare been accustomed to regard tho hus-
band in the light Of general sponsor for tho
good behavior Of his wife. He has been held
accountable in law to this extent Tie consery-
atiyo English husbands may feel more reconciled
to tho new departure, however, when they learn
that the proposed change in the marital rela~
tions will likewise relieve them from their old
responsibilities for the gossip of tia sewing 10
cieties. It may still DO felt that the construction
which the Illinois Supreme Court has put upon
the law may be productive Of numerous and easy
frauds in the way Of rapid transfers Of prop
erty aud dobts between husband and wife. The
marriage relation affords special facilities for
fixing the ownership OF property whero it may
be most convenient for the time being. The
law, however, must take cogni.ance OF these
along with other frauds, aud their possibility
cannot affect the clearly logical conclusion that
the husband is not held responsible for the debts
or injuries of his wife wlen he has ceased to
control her property, earnings, and business
speculations.