The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1891-05-05
A wIFE'S RIGHTS.

The decision in the Court OF
| Appeal in England in the case
which is best known as the Clith-
eroe abduction case has excited
not q little comment without as
well as within the limits of the
English law courts.
The history of the case up to the
date of the so-called abduction is
very simple, although we venture
to hope it is also very singular.
A young lady of some con-
siderable property married in
1887 at registrars Office,
and unknown to most her
relatives, a gentleman of a suit
able age and social position, though
it does not appear that he possessed
any independent fortune, for on
the afternoon of the wedding day
the bridegroom sailed for Australia
(the bride does not appear to have
made any objection) to try "to
better his fortune" For a year Mr..
Jackson and his wife correspondent
affectionately, but towards the end
of 1888 the lady's letters began to
grow cool, and on the gentleman's
return from the Colonies she re-
fused to see him. ~
As there had been no quarrel or
even cause of complaint alleged by
either party to this time, the
aggrieved husband concluded that
his wife's relatives were influencing
her for the sake of controlling her
property. He then sought and
obtained an order from the High
Court for restitution of conjugal
rights" but the lady refused to
obey 1t and went to live with her
sister at Clitheroe q small town in
Lancashire where the lady's prop
erty seems to have been situated.
1t was here, on leaving the parish
church one Sunday morning that
the lady was suddenly seized in
the presence of her husband and of
several of her own relatives, forced
into carriage and driven off to
house, her husband accompanying
the party, belonging to the hus-
bands uncle and where he himself
was living. The party entered
the house which was Immediately
closed and barricaded, and en-
trance refused to the lady's soli-
citor or her relatives.
After some days the principals
in the abduction surrendered to a
charge of common assault and were
taken in a carriage to the police
court.
After some fencing in the law
courts, application was made for
writ of Habeas Corpus, which was
refused by two Lords Justices on
the ground that the order for resti-
tuition had been by the husband
legally obtained, but On appeal
their decision was reversed by the
Lord Chancellor and two other
Judges, who, having together pri-
vately Intercepted the lady, an
nounced that sin refusing to go to
her husbands house, and in con-
tinuance to her resistance therein
she was acting entirely of her own
free WILL" and that she was not
forced or induced by any one else
to refuse to continue in her hus-
bands house; and added the Lord
Chancellor, The law does not en-
title man to keep his wife in con-
fnement.
On this the Times remarks: "We
have not a word to say against it.
But if this be so is it not flag
rant injustice that he should be in
future compelled to regard himself
as her husband, more or less re-
sponsible for her actions, certainly
responsible for her debts; she bear
ing his name, and he bearing the
burden of her claims upon him.
Freedom is q very fine thing, but
let it not be one-sided he
ought in common justice to be free |
TO have nothing more to do with
her, and to marry again"