The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1891-05-09
A Married WOman's Legal Status

d tAiSte w NNNA' ''NN1
will ever become extinct.
A Married WOman'S Legal Status
In these days OF conflicting de
cisions, the legal status of a marie d
woman is, to use a time worn ex-
preston a puzzle even to a Phila-
delphia lawyer. That Maryland
lawyers have recognized her chang
ing legal status, is well illustrated by
| the letter said to have been written
by a gentleman OF the older gener-
ations of lawyers Mr.. John w. Girls
field, to Mr.. John P. Poe OF Balti
more, while the latter was engaged
in coditying the laws of Maryland.
Mr.. Poe recognizing the many
absurdities in the existing law OF
husband and wife, in the spirit of a
practical reformer, thought to make
the law conform in a measure at least
to modern ideas, as to wite'5 light to
execute contracts and do other acts
of legal character apart from her
husband. Learning of Mr.. Poe's
intention, and being opposed to
some of his proposed changes in the
law of husband and wife thinking he
was going too far, Mr.. Crisheld wrote
him, protesting that he was chang
ing the legal relations Of man and
wife, as understood and interpreted
by preceding generations of judges
and lawyers, and if he persisted,
that the result Of his efforts at re-
form would be, to place a wife in a
position superior. rather than sub
ordinate to her husband.
In the face however of Mr.. Girls
fields protests, Mr. Poe did make
some changes in the law OF Mary
land directly in line with the follow
ing decision just rendered by Judge
Arnold of Philadelphia, and which
we publish as especially lnteres ing
to such of our readers as are married
womer.
The Judge says
"The plaintiff claims witness fees
for his wife, the defendant objects,
and hence this appeal. The question
is new, because the law admitting
husband and wife to testify for, but
not against, each other. is new. But
in the few cases in which a party
may be excluded from testifying his
wife is also excluded. This is not
because of any supposed unity Of
husband and wife, for it is manifest
that as witnesses they are two in
number, but because of their iden
tity of interest and the policy of the
law. A husband joined for con-
formity in suit by his wife prior to
the married persons property act OF
June 8. 1887, cannot recover witness
fees becarse he is party. No one
who is a party can have witness fees,
whether he has an interest in the suit
or not.
"The law now regards the unity
of husband and wife as an obsolete
legal fiction, and it has accommo
dated itself to that fact The Old
rule of law that on a gift to a man
and his wife and a third person the
man and wife together took only
half the property and the third pr
son took the other half, S abolished
by the modern legislation in regard
to married persons. Each takes a
third now Statute law recognizes
that husband and wife are two per-
sons in substantial matters. The act
of June sd, 1887, recognizes the Gus
toms and habits of the people, and
declares these customs to be lawful
The common law was the customary
law of the people, declared by the
| Judges. 1t was the best statesman-
ship, the faculty to observe what
was needed and then grant it
There was tire when husband
and wife were one IN the eye OF the
law. The husband, on marriage,
took all his wite's horses, cattle,
sheep and oxen. He could chastise
her-moderately, say the books
| l,+ e he Inae - ,,o,,, J., I'LL I>o ,>,,,,
lshed as wife beaten. A wife was
a help mate indeed. She spun yarns,
wove cloth, made frocks and
breeches. and was generally merged
into her husbands pocket if not into
his person. Women who bring out
the spinning wheels of their ance:
tors, or buy them if they have them
not, exhibit badge of woman's
bondage Now hus and and wife
wear clothes made and bought in
stores. In the olden time there were
no bazars and grand depots and
establishments of smaller size in
which all that is worn by man or
woman can be bought Formerly
| married women were ulQeI al
actual disability to buy goods and
make contracts. Now they are not,
except that the law of this State, in
its transition state, still puts the
burden on the store keeper to prove
and tor Judge and juries to decide
that the articles sold by him to the
| woman were necessary for her,
overlooking the fact that the best
Judge of what is necessary for a
woman, sound in mind, body and
estate, is herself. Her disability in
this respect is changed into priv
ilege to get and keep all she can,
with an immunity from liability, ex
cept for necessaries. The next leg
islation will change this, no doubt,
as it has been changed in England
and nearly all the States.
Gas there is no policy of law
violated by allowing witness fees to
a wife in a suit by her husband, if
she is a material witness, we think
the allowance of her fees by the
Prothonotary is proper in this case.
Whether she was a material witness
! is a question for the taxing officer TO
determine. The affidavit of party
that a witness is material is not con-