The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1877-04-03
MARRIED WOMEN.
Their Property Rights in England Defined.


Their Property Rights in England Defined.
Vice Chancellor Malins had before
him, on Tuesday, the case OF Ashworth
VS.. Outram, in which an interesting
question concerning the rights OF mar
RED women under the Married Women's
Property Act arose. In 1874 Sarah Fair
bank was carrying on the business OF o
fruit preserVer near Halifax, having
also been housekeeper TO Mr.. Thomas
Outram for some years. This gentle
man is stated to have been much weak
ened by disease; but in April of the
year 1874 the two were married. No
settlement was executed, and the hus-
band died two months afterwards intes-
tate. 1t is, however, alleged that there
was verbal agreement that the wife
should be allowed to carry on the busi-
ness for her own profit.
The plaintiffs, who are some of the
husbands relatives, deny this, and con-
tend that the business was always car
ried on with the husbands money, which
is denied by the widow. The plaintiffs
claim to have half OF the personal state
of The deceased intestate, including the
business, which is stated to be worth
$4,000 a year. Evidence having been
taken to the above effect, Mr.. Glasse,
20, e.; Mr.. Milward, @. O., and Mr.. Nal
Uer lor the plaintiffs, and Mr.. Higgins,
Q. c., Mr.. j. Pearson, Q. o., ana MIR.
Freezing for the widow, addressed the
Coart for their clients; the principal
question being whether separate prop
erCy belonging to the wife at the time OF
marriage made subsequent to 1870
passes 10 the husband, Wuere no settle
ment has been executed.
Mr.. Glasse eontended that the mar
riage was Of the wife's making, the poor
old man being worn out with age and
disease.
The Vice Chancelor-He was only
tity-six; rs that old age? (laughter)
He wanted a nurse perhaps.
Mr.. Glasse-Sbe gave up all her prop
erty by the act Of marriage. She had TO
say, with all my worldly goods tnee
endow," (laughter)
The Wee Ehancellor-It is the hus-
band who mas to say tnat.
Mr.. Pearson-4es, the husband, not
the wife.
Mr.. Glasse-Well, it may be SO; for
get. AT all events, that is the common
law. Ali The wite's personal property,
to the clothes she wears, goes to her
hu usband, and this is specially recog-
nized by the Act of 1870. AS evidence
has been received for The defendant to
show that the money was advanced by
her, claim TO 20 into evidence to the
contrary, and refer to all now put in.
The Wee Cnancellor-I can not hear
any evidence to contradict that VIII Gu
was admitted by the plaintiffs iu the
opening, namely, that the business was
ners.
Vice Chancellor Malins, in delivering
Judgment, said this case raised a very
important question under the Married
Women's Property AeG of 1870. There
was no proof that The mites tate ever paid
for any of the sugar or other articles
with which the plaintiffs business OF
jam-m&king was carried On.s On The con-
Grary, lie appeared TO nave been neces-
siLOus man during The whole period OF
their acquaintance and COurtsnjp, eX-
tending 10 the unusual length OF nine
teen years; and, on the marriage, she
transferred to hlm q sum OF 300 lor his
private use in his business vi farming.
Sne appeared TO have been a woman
of remarkable energy, and had evident
ly raised up THIS large business entirely
by her own eXerJions. He had been
threatened with an appeal, bat he wished
counsel TO understand that everything
he did was done under sense OF full
responsibility, and OF tie possibility of
there being appeal, and he wished, there
fore that such threats might not be used.
Applause, which was at once sup
pressed.)
Mr.. Glasse begged to disclaim the in
tention Of using threats sucl as haG been
imputed to him.
The Vice Chancellor was glad to hear
it. BY the fact of the marriage all the
personal property OF the wife reduced
into the possession of the husband dur
ing the marriage became his. By the
Act of 1870, the earnings of any married
woman III any employment separate
from her husband, and the Investments
of sucn earnings, became her separate
property. Now, the husband here by
lis acts, if not by his words, allowed
her TO carry on this business separately
from him, and the business was there
lore hers. He should, therefore, give his
opinion in lavor OF the widow, and
should have done SO, under the general
rules of the Court, Independently OF the
Act.- London Times.