New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-06-04
I, the hu.baud and that they both occupied IT during

the night
That H. docs not say committed adultery but
it says that she went by appointment with paramount
North River boat, and that the paramour took
stateroom I'm husbands and that both occupied
II all night.
And these facts sufficient sustain the charge OF
adultery, and while IL is possblethat man and woman
OF their ages might occupy the same room Tor ngnt
without guilt yet the presumption strong against them
and in this Court IT would unless clearly explained pe
always sufficient 10 sustain the adultery These iacs II
the uness0n is believed TO have bcen fairly obtained
and understandingiy made are sufficient 70 IT,
that this Court may found its Judgment upon IL
These are the assignaon false preenses OF her
husband The Court then has TO take mp the question
OF the language OF the confession, and says:
The language confession although 1t does not say
al committed adultery" IL did 80 and so ana Il was
read 10 her and explained to her before the Mas'er anu
she signed IL and swOre To it,
Chancellor Zabrske to understand something OF
the terrible subjugaton OF married woman's WILL tor
he says
against their Judgment and wishes only 70 grati1y the
acquisitions Of their husbands and 70 avoid the dsson
fort and annoyance which refusal would cause, ana SOL
EMMY acknowledge before officer on private ex-
animation that it il done of their own free Will me
step taken by Mrs Derby only one degree Deyohu
this consisted in this that she did not only part
with properly put LS,s % d nner tb
that the facts admitted did not compromise
ment that lew women in their senses would have made
not true, and in order 20 believe IL In her case u
troll Of her husband From the facts the the
cusion il unavoidable that she not a resolufe
srong-mindcd woman, but of Yielding unresisting ma
She else cOuld have borne the treatment 70
which for years she had been subjected by her husband
On the other hand Derby appears TO be man OF decided
will strong resOue, and violent, and knows the Vde
OF energy and violent attitude ia oyerruling more umd
minds.
That con did csnyict the wife nor procure
release for the husband from the bonds Of matrimony
In the case OF Curtis agt Curtis in Swaby rrstram
the wife
Made repeated confessions under no other coercion
than the fear that her husband who was unsettled IN
mind would get insane she refused Held an abundant
explanation, and divorce granted IN FAVOR OF the We'
Which would have been precluded II there had been
any faith put in confessions thus gained from her An
gentlemen. this institution OF marriage, framed IN our
nature built up in civilization, studied, contem
plated understood by the jurisprudence OF ages Is sod
and real institution and for s great benefits, and ms
necessary part OF fe carries not only the faet OF the
wifes subordnaton the husband but OF the mercfu
Interpretation Of that subOrdnation which sensible IN
structed men in practical life and which the
Judges pronounced from the bench and the juries con-
firm by verdcts. Now, gentlemen, you may think that
in advanced civilization when so much or independ
ence il for and entire equality Ia ac
corded to them feeling and sentiment by their nus
bands and by the world, that the old rule
OF the common law Interpreting this institution OF mar
rage by which wife held responsible to the
law or subject to punishment for any crime committed
by her in the presence and under the influence OF Ter
husband, OF those traits OF humannature DeOnS
ing to ruder ages and to past times but, gentlemen in
Court Of Appeals and in the highest tribunals Oh
England, within the last few years. there ia an explicit
recognition OF these principles Let me read you case
Michael Tarpley this was late as 1871 was 1t net
Mr. Abbott
Mr.. Abbott-Ycs
Mr. Evarts-In London Michael Tarpley, giving the
name of Terril applied to jeweer, representing that he
wished to make gift his wife, and induced the jeweer
to send by clerk quantity Of diamond ornaments 10
house in a highly respectable ncighborhood IN London
which he Carpley had rem shortly before the ransac
ton and Immediately after the transaction vacated
The house door was opened the shopman by Michael
Tarey and he excused TO the shopman the absence OF
the servant who it appears had been sent on an crhd
to fictitious person by Michael Tarpleys wife, Martha
When the had been displayed 20 Michael Tarpey aud
his wife Michael his wife from the room, ostensby to
call her sister Who however II there really such
person. seems not to have been in the house The wife
left the room but presently returned saying her sister
would come and then stepping quickly behind the shop
man that Is, the wife, she placed handkerchief sat
urated with something his mouth, Michael Tarpey
Selling by the throat and the woman Tor an instant
shaken off, again applying the handkerchief 70 his face
The shopman after an interval OF unconsclOusness, dis
covered himself bound with straps. Michael TeTill
then stood over him. threatened him. and bundfolded
his eyes The shopman then heard Michael
say. quick Lucy, bring my hat and heard
him leave the room, DC. Michael escaped arrest
The woman was are ted and tried FOR that robbery, and
she was acquitted by the Judgment OF the English law
because what she had done she had done in the presence
and pro suedly under the power Of her husband and.
although they had tputatiOns aterward in the House
OF Lords as to whether that presumption should have
that degree Of force there should be some additional
evidence beyond presence, OF power exercised at tho
moment yet that stands the most recent inquiry INTO
the ENGLISH law on this subject and the Parliament OF
IT.. y, hat ule Z
called 20 its attention. has altered the law, but has
refused 20 do
Now gentlemen, Won understand how IL s that ths law
Of ours which not tyrant, which is not merciless
which does delight in destruction but protects nao-
cence how this Of appreciates the situation Of
woman toward her husband. All. gentlemen. and you
now see the wisdom OF law in not permitting even
this great interest Justice Interfere with the insttu
ton OF marriage by allowing wives TO TESTIFY for Their
husbands against Others the principles of human
nature do permit the interests OF others to he exposed
70 the power OF the husband in procuring wifes oath
And they do allow her testify against her husband
because The that makes marriage what It IL, and
fnscs release from except upon grounds incompatible
with its endurance and its usefulness as an institution
does not subject wives be overpowered, and their
fidelity 10 truth brought into that terrible choice between
fidelity to an oath and fidelity to a husband between
swearing-not with their lives in their hsnds. because
death s nothing compared with the Orments and oppres
sons which through the following he will crush and dc
grade the spirit and make wretched the life OF woman
that has in that sad alternative to swear TO the
truth against her husband; the law does not give
her a divorce from that misery; the law leaves
her , TO lie in his bosom, TO sit at his
table. TO watch him in sickness, ia adhere
to him by necessity and 1t does not tear asln-
der human nature by divided allegiance to two great
stuOns which society upon, and both Of which il
mus, sustain and it solves the question by determining
mat neither shall interests of third persons be az
fccted by the concurring oath OF the wife with the hs
band nor the wcs life and the institution Of marriage
be disconnected and broken by choice between divided
allegiance Society chooses for her and says You
the Wife and public justice shall place you the
witnessstand."
Now IL your Honor please to what our own Courts