The farmers' union. (Memphis, Mo.) 1891-1895, 1891-07-02
English Marriage Laws.

A case was recently tried and decid-
ed in the English Court of .Apl eaIs
which attracted a great deal of atten-
ton. since it had an important bearing
on the rights of an English husband
over his wife.
1t appears that q gentleman named
Jackson, soon after marrying, was
obliged to go to New Zealand on press
ing business. He left his newly mar
ried wife in England. Upon his return,
he found that she had taken up her res
idence with her relatives, aud. to his
surprise, she obstiuately refused to 20
baci, to him and live with him.
The husband resolved thoreupon to
exercise the right which he supposed to
be hi, by the time .honored law of the
land, and to capture his wife aud COM
pei her to live with him whether she
would or not.
With some friends he managed to get
and carried her off to his own house.
There he kept st'ict guard over her for
several days. using, indeed. no bodily
violence, further than to take her bonnet
away and throw it into the fire and for
bidding her relatives access 10 her.
The relatives moved for writ of ha-
beas corpus, which compelled the hus-
band to produce his wife in court in or.
der that it might be decided whether
he was lawfully retaining her.
The Divisional Court, before which
the case was first tried, affirmed the
husbands right to hold and keep POS
session of his wife's person.
But an appeal was made to the high
est court, that of .Apreals, consulting of
the Lord Chancellor, the Master Of the
Rolls, and Lord Justice Fry; and this
highest court reversed the decision of
the lower court, All unanimously de.
cided that the husband had no such
right; that he had been wrong from
first to last, and that the obdurate wife
| must be released and restored to liberty
| III this couptry there would probably
| be but one opinion as TO the Justice OF
| this decision. But in England, from
ancient times. the idea that the husband
! has right to compel his wife to live
| with him has been rooted in the public
| mind.
In recent years, however, many laws
have been passed in England, regarding
the rights OF married women, which
have been in harmony with modern
thought throughout the civilized world.
1t is true that the law, which has ex-
listed for more than sixty years, forbid
dug any man to marry the sister of his
di- -eased wife, still remains CT the
statnte book. 1t has been repeatedly
repealed by the House of Commons;
but the Houe of Lords, largely in.
f1uenced BIZ the bishops. has always re-
fused to do away with the restriction.
While wife who is de- erted by hel
husband cannot. in England, as she can
in most of our Sta;e., obtain divorce
from him on that ground, she can com
pei PIN to support her. by paying he,
such a weekly sum "as is in accordance
with his MEANS" On the other hand,
it seems by the recent decision that q
husband has no rights whatever over q
wife who deserts.
BY law. passed within ten years
moreover the married Engli>hwoman's
rights in regard to property have boes
greatly enlarged. She can now acquire
hold and bequath property in her OWL
name. without any control or interfer
ence of her husband; while she is liable
for the debts separately contracted 10y
her. She has thus been placed virtu
ally in the same position, as to property
as q man or as an unmarried woman.
The result of the decision which ha.
been referred to is likely to be, that de
sertion by q wife in England Will bt
added. in the laws of that country, t,
the other causes for which husband
can sue for divorce. --Iouths Com
pdlliOn