Woman's chronicle. (Little Rock, Ark.) 1888-1???, 1890-09-20
Has Wife a Right to Her Husbands
Society?


1t is curious circumstance that within few
months the highest court in not fewer than four
States has passed upon this question in actions
brought by wife against another woman for alien
ating the affections of her husband. Such suits
are rare compared with the number of correspond
ing ones brought by husband against another
man.
1t is not less curious to note the conflict of opin-
ion in these four cases. In Maine and Wisconsin
the right of the wife was denied. In Vermont and
New York it was affirmed
There has never been any question as to the
right of husband to bring such a suit But the
Supreme Court of Wisconsin holds that the right
Of wife to the society Of her husband is not the
same as his right to her society The loss of her
husbands society is not an injury to her person,
property, means of support or character. 'There
are" says Judge Orion, snatural and unchange-
able conditions of husband and wife that make
that right radically unequal and different
"The wife is more domestic and is supposed to
have the personal care of the household and her
duties in the domestic economy require her to be
more constantly at home where the husband may
nearly always expect to find her and enjoy her So
ciety. She is purer and better by nature than her
husband and more governed by principle and
sense of duty Actions against others for entlcing
her away from her home and her husbands society
are not frequent. She is protected from such
wrong not only by her integrity of character, but
by greater love for her family and the comforts and
genial influences of home life
With the husband, the Court goes on to say, the
case is different.
"He may not be his wifes superior in the sense
of the common law or in anything, and may be her
inferior in many things, but he is charged with the
duty of providing for, maintaining and protecting
his wife and family. He is engaged for this pur-
pose in the business and various employments of
the outside world that must necessarily more or
less deprive his wife of his society. He may be
kept away from home for months or wears. He is
exposed to the temptations, enticemens and allure
ments Of the world. The wife had reason to ex-
pect all these things when she entered the marriage
relation"
Such stuff is not credtabe to the Bench from
which it comes 1t finds its REPUTATION and merited
condemnation in these views, expressed by Judge
Vann in the opinion OF the second division of the
New York Court of Appeals:
''The actual injury to the wife from the loss of
consortiam, which is the basis of the action is the
same as the actual injury to the husband from that
cause. His right to the conjugal society of his
wife is no greater than her right to the conjugal
society of her husband Marriage gives to each
the same rights in that regard. Each is entitled
to the comforts, companionship and affection of
the other The rights of the one and the oblga-
tions of the other spring from the marriage con-
tract and are mutual in character. Any inter-
ference with these rights, whether of the husband
or the wife, is violation not only of a natural
right, but also of legal right arising out of the
marriage relation
The opinion of the Wisconsin Supreme Court
revives the old common law notion that wife is a
slave of her husband. The opinion of the New
York Court of Appeals embodies the true principle
of to-day, that wife is the equal of her husband.
IN. Y. Herald.
Mr.. Armour and the Bootblaok.