The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1883-04-12
THE LAW OF MAN AND WIFE.
Judge NudsonE DeciBion In the Caae Of
DIR. Sims.

| COLUMBIA, April 6.-The Sessions
courtroom was crowded this morning 10
hear the decision of the Court ~ to the
compatibility Of Mrs. Sims as witness
against her husband. The sheriff raped
for order and said that the Court had
received letter pertaining to the case.
aud had handed it to the counsel for the
defence, who were at liberty to read it
aloud.
Col. Abney read the letter. It ran as
follows, and is entirely in Mrs. Sims's
handwriting:
Co..Umais, :. c., April 6. 1855.
To the Court: respectfully decline to
be sworn as witness against my hus-
band in this case and protest against
being made to testify. did not wish
my husband prosecuted, but only desired
him bound over to keep the peace.
did not know the contents of the affidavit
drawn up by the officer until after the
arrest was made, and then l did not 90
before the grand jury at Aiken because |
did not wish my husband punished, and
I only came here because / did not wish
to be brough under arrest, as bench war.
rants were issued 10 bring me. The cir.
cumstances of the case have been greatly
exaggerated by idle rumor. MY bus.
band has inflicted nc bodily injury upon
me, aud | have long ago forgiven him
any wrong he may have done me.
wrote the solicitor that wished the
prosecution stopped, and now pray the
Court not to destroy the peace and hap
f;1ess Of CT. family ai1d the welfare OF
our child by forcing me TO testify in this
case. Most respectfully,
Mrs. NJ. ID. SIMS.
After the reading of this note address.
ed to the Court he thought the fact of
Mrs. Sims's disinclination to testify was
established, and it was unnecessary to
urge that she be sworn on her toir dire.
After arguments by Messrs. Abney
and johnson against compelling Nina.
Sims to teatify, Judge Hudson asked the
solicitor if he had anything to say.
Solicitor Bonham replied that he un.
derstood that counsel for the defence
were to have had the reply. He would,
therefore, have nothing further to say on
this question. If his Honor ruled that
Mrs. Sims could not be compelled 10
testify he would not press the matter
further.
Judge Hudson in giving his decision
said: The question ut issue was an i'm.
portant, momentous question to the
profession, and one efiacting the welfare
of society as large, and it had therefore
given him great concern. Unguestiona.
bly, the wisdom Of our ancestofs had been
marifested in the ancient doctrine of
English jurisprudence, that the peace of
the family circle is at the foundation of
the prosperity Of tho State. Hence, in
the early history of English iurispru.
dence the rule had been adopted, and
zealously adhered to since, that neither
husband nor wife was competent nor
compellable to testify against the other
either in civil or criminal proceedings.
To allow otherwise would be to strike at
the root of the family.
An exception to this rule was also es.
tablished at an early day, and that was
that the wife was admitted to testify
against her husband when he was being
prosecuted for an act of violence against
her person. Why was that allowed
Was it because the Government consid.
cred Unnecessary to the ends of Justice
for the punishment of criminals, or was
1t for the protection Of the wife and the
protection Of that which Ia at the foun.
dation Of the happiness Of the State
domestic pesce2 He must conclude
that 1t was for the enforcement of domes-
GtC sIduquiutyi 70 Suuulo the WIG 20 en-
fore, at the hands Of her husband peace.
ful conduct towards her. That was the
reason OF the exception rather than to
enehle che es1ee--ss::szsSSIass 70 punish crime
Of any characts,, committed anywhere,
even in domestic circles. qta'1
Domestic brawb did not usually dis.
turb the outside world, hence This excep.
ton was not made for the peace of the
community, bdta privilege accorded to
the wife to permit her TO Invoke the law
in her own behalf. Under the common
law where o woman was competent,
could she be dragged into court to testify
against her husband7 Perhaps DO, If o
felony had teen committed upon her
person, but he doubted even that. Boz
ifa mere breach of the peace should be
committed, according to tho common
law she mey testify on the witnee8 stand,