The Sunday morning news. [volume] (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1886-1891, 1891-09-06
JERSEY LAW IS GALLANT.
It Has a Tender Regard for
Women and Their
Interests.
MOTHERS LOVE PROTECTED
Married WOmen's Property Rights
Since 1875 she May Make
Separate Contracts.


New Jersey law has always had a ten
der regard for women and demonstrates
its tenderness in many ways. In no par
ticular is this more manifest than in
laws relating to the custody OF children
| One or two instances will show clearly
how justice concerning the custody of
children is metea out In New Jersey more
satisfactorily than by columns of COM
ment. The case OF Lyon against Lyon
was argued in the Court OF Chancery a
| few years ago. The couple had separat-
ed, the wife maintaining that her hus-
band was SO given to the use OF liquor as
to make 1t impossible for her to live with
him with any degree of comfort or safety.
| She petftioned to be given the custody OF
| their child. boy between five and six
years of age. The father urged that the
| child he gwen over to him principally be-
| cause he was in position to support and
educate it properly while the mother was
| not.
The claim Of drunkenness made by the
| mother Was NOT substantiate while
| much clearer evidence showing that she
had left her husband without sufficient
cause. Was advanced. Vice Chancellor
| Van Fleet gave the child to the father,
| but with set OF rigid conditions which
would be outlined as carefully In but few
| States, The father should remain at all
times In such condition OF sobri-
ETY. as to render him safe and prop
or custodian OF the child. In case the
child fell sick SO as to require medical
| aid the father was to inform the mother
| and offer her. If she desired, an oppor-
ruuity TO be with the child and take care
! oft.
MUST BE TREATED WITH KINDNESS.
l truA ba faith mr. ar
that the mother be treated with kindness
4 and respect Ii the mother desired. the
| child must be taken by the father to her
| residence one day each week aud pe left
with her from nine 10 the morning until
1 seven in the evening. The mother might
select the day, aud only had TO give the
father six hours notice. When the child
became old enough to 60 TO school the
parents must select its place of education.
If they failed to agree the Vice Chancel-
lor would make the selection himself.
From this it is very evident that the
highest aud most humane motives ami
mate the execution of the New Jersey
statutes concerning the custody
of children. The court in this
instance failed to find sufficient
ground in the evidence submitted TO
give the child over TO the mother en-
tirely. but in making it over TO the
father laid down restrictions of this great
est clenency as regarded the matter.
ODOu the slightest 4QefSilctlO0s from the
conditions, the child would pass into the
mothers hands. Ia fact. the chief rea-
son for her not getting the custody of the
\ child completely seems to have been be-
| cause her circumstances were SO strait
ened that she conld but III support 1t.
INFAvoR OF THE MOTHER.
Another interesting case bearing out
the conmendaDle character OF the New
Jersey statutes In this direction is that OF
English against English. The wife left
her husband on account OF mis- abuse OF
marital rights OF wife November, 1875,
taking with her her two children. The
wife's petition for divorce, on TIE
ground OF abuse, was deuied upon the
Husbands promise of eonjugal kindness
thereafter. The wife, however, refused
Notwithstanding the husbands over.
lures and entreaties. IL was held
that the wife's actions were not
'misconduct,1 within the meaning of the
statute, sufficient to take away from her
the possession of the children, the mother
being capable and willing to support aud
educate them, and the children prefer
ring to remain with her. In order to
take the children from the mother she
must, according to the statute, '.be of
such character and habits as 70 render
her au improper guardian This could
not be proven, and the Chancellor de-
creed ia favor of the mother. Appeal
was made from the decision,
and the case was argued ia
The decision of the Chancellor was
sustained by a vote of eleven to one.
In considering the case in all its details
the court made very clear cardinal
point Ia the New Jersey statute bearing
upon such matters, which IS to the effect
that the best interests of the children
should De held tantomount to everything
else, as their welfare is believed to be
superior to the claims Of the parents. In
a section governing the custody OF in
fants, when the husband and wife separate
without divorce, Ii Is set forth that when
minor children are brought before the
court on habeas corpus, the court shall
rule for the accession of mother to infant
children under such circumstances as it
may direct. II the child or children be
under the age Of seven. an order may be
made to deliver them to the mother until
they shall have attained such age, unless
tue mother be proved unfit TO have the
guardianship of them.
CONCERNING w0siEN's PROPERTY.
There is a very general belief among
| New Jersey lawyers that the laws of the
State in regard TO the rights of women ia
the holding and administration of prop
| erty are founded on a much broader basis
than in many States. In New Jersey an
unmarried woman's rights in this respect
are precisely similar to those of a man.
When she is married but three important
restrictions are put upon her. as fol-
lows:-FirSt, she cannot be security for
the debt or default Of anyone; second,
she cannot convey or mortg gage her real
estate without the concurrence of her
husband; third, she cannot By her will
devise any life right, that her husband
has claim upon.
There is a very great difference in the
statutes Of the several States. sud IN
many they are of much more narrow
character than here. In West Virginia a
married woman, unless she is living sep
arate from her husband. can not sell and
convey her real estate unless her husband
joins in the decd or other writing by
which the same is sold or conveyed. In
New Hampshire the husband can not con-
vey real estate to his wife, nor is any nm
dertaking by her for him or in his behalf
held binding upon her.
In Michigan the husband is not liable
for the contracts made by bis wife in re-
lation TO her property. nor does he hold
her lands or any part thereof after her
death as Il tenant by com tesy or other
! wise In Iowa particular stress is laid on
the fact chat neither husband nor wife
are liable for the debts of the other. The
expenses of the family and the education
OF the children are chareeable upon the
| property OF both husband and wife, or
either of them, and in relation thereto
they may be sued jointly or separately.
Uuless authorized by decree Of court