The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-07-10
is THE WIFE A SLAVE?
EngIand's Chief Justice Decides a
Case in Which All Woman
kind Is Interested.
Coleridge Says a Husband Has
Not Dominion Over His
Wife's Person.
If a Man Does Not Possess His Wife's AT
lection He Cannot Hold Her Person
An Indiana Case.

Chief Justice Coleridge, of England. de-
cided in a recent case-the "Clitheroe case"
that the marriage relationship did not
give the husband the right of dominion
over the wife's person, says the Salt LAX Q
Tribune. In other words, that the lord OF
creation" had no right to regard his vita an
a mere chattel, or as q piece Of property to
deal with as he thought proper. No matter
how solemn the obligation which the wife
may have assumed, her W person was her
property, the title to which was vested
in her exclusively, and no marriage cere-
mony constituted n cloud pom that title.
The peculiar case which called forth this
decision was that of a mar kidnapping his
wife and taking her to his home against her
will. They had been married in
London some three years before, and
shortly after the marriage the husband
left for New Zealand to seek his
fortune there. A few months ago he re-
turned to London to find that his wife's
affections in the meantime had been trans
ferred to another, proving that it is some
times unsafe to bank too much upon the
prospect of success when the ore body is
not always in sight, In love matters as we'll
as in mining. On his return his wife re-
fused to live with him. This was too much
for him. During his years of exile in New
Zealand the one thought buoyed him up
and stimulated him to greater endeavor,
that on his return the blessed and happy
reunion would in q measure repay him for
his forced absence. He soon found, how
ever, that he had been living on a false
hope-that his guiding star. which he
fondly believed was shining over him,
was shining for some one else. But
though his wife's affections were gone,
though he could not take possession of
them. he could take possession OF her per-
son. which he did by n piece OF strategy,
and took her to his home and kept her
there a prisoner. 1t was against this pro-
ceeding that the chief justice entered his
decision as above.
The case is an unique one; but nfter all
the decision is perfectly logical. If n wife
refuses to have anything to do with the
man abe has promised to love and obey"
why then the consequences should rest
with herself, and, outside OF the foolish
ness of a man trying to take forcible pos
session of a woman whose affections and
whose will are entirely At enmity with his
own, tho marriage vowa did not include the
enslayement of her person.
A case somewhat similar to tho nbove was
photographed the other day from Indiana. A
man and woman were married clandestinely
by "A Catholic priest several months ago.
The man took his bride to his home, which
was III sight of the home OF the brides ia
ther. Tn brides father. Calender by
name, became enrnped at tho marriage,
took legal steps TO show that his daughter
was taken away against her will. secured
possession OF her person and took her
back to his home. A fow days ago the
bridegroom, Patrick Ryan, with another
man, entered the houHo of Calender when
tho latter was absent. took forcible posses-
sion OF the bride and carried her away to
his house. The old man again appealed ia