The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1891-01-02
MATRIMONIAL. SOCIETY.
q WHO Sustains Actual xnJnrv from the
Loss OF onsOrttum

u WHO SuNains Actual xnJurv from the
! Loss OF onsOrtlum.
! 1t is n curious circumsta AGO that with
In u fcw months the hi5Aost court in
not fewer than four States has passed
upon this question in urt ON brou rht by
vito against another wornan sor alien.
nting the affections OF her husband.
Such su is AFRO rare compared with tho
number of corresponding ones brought
by husband against another man.
IL is not less curious to noto tho con-
Il ct OI opinion i'll those four casc. In
Maine and Wisconsin tho right OF tho
wifi" wa denied. In Vermont AMI New
York it was affirmed.
There has never boon any question
~ TO the right OF II husband To bring
such SUIT l;ut tho Supreme Court OF
Wisconsin holds that tho right of a wire
to the society of her husband is not tho
Same as his right 10 her society. Tho
loss OF her husbands society mos an
injury to her person, properly, mean, OF
support or character. ''rhoro are"
says Judge Orion. natural and un-
chaDgcable conditions OF husband and
VITO that make that right radically un-
equal and different"
Tho wife is more domestic and is sun
posed to have tho personal care OF tho
household, and her duties in tho do
nestle economy require h"r to BIZ moro
con instantly at home, where the husband
may nearly always expect to find her
anu enjoy her society. She is purcr
anu better by nature than her husband
and moro governed by principle and
sense of duty. Action, against others
for enticing her away from home and
her husbands society are moi frequent.
She is protected from such wrong nos
only by her int gritty OF character. hn,
by greater love Tor her family an tho
comfort; anl gen Il influences; OF hOuo
life.
With The husband. the court goes on
10 say. the case is different.
He may not be lbs W fo', superior in
tn sen q of Tie common law in any
thing, AMI may be- her inferior in many
things. hut he ii'charsol W th the duty
of providing for maintaining AMI pro-
icctns lis wife and family. lie )
engaged for this purnon in til,
business and variou, "njpymrnti OF
the outside world that must noe
css ,ar.ly moro or los deprive Ii
wifc cf his society. lie may ba k.p5
away from home for months q: vfars.
lie is expo cd 10 the tcmI tulion. cntict.-
mcnt' AMI alUromenti OF the world.
The wife had reason 20 rXnoct ali these
things when she entered the lnarr:ugo
relation.
Such tut is not crollablr to tho bench
from which it comes. IL finds its rcf..-
taticn and meritcl condemnation III
these Vows expressed by Judge Vanr
in the opinion OF tho second div sion or
tho Now York Court OF Appeals:
THO actual injury OF Tho wife from.
the loss OF consort INN. which il the
basis OF the action. il tho same rs tho
actual injury to the husband from tho
same cause. His right 10 tho conjurai
society OF his wifo is no greater than her
right TO the coniugal society or her hus-
band. Marriage gives 10 zach the snme
rights in that regard. Each j.; entitled
To the comforts, companonship and al
lection Of the other. rho rights of tho
ono and The obligations OF the other
spring from the marriage contract and
arc mutual in character. Any inter-
fcronce with these rights. whether OF
the husband or tho wife. is a violation
not only OF n natural right but also OF %
legal right arising out of tho marriage
relation"
Tho opinion Of the Wisconsin SUI
promo Court revive, tho old common
law notion that q wife is slave OF her
husband. The opinion of tho New York
Court Of Appeals cmbodcs tho truo prin-
ciple Of to-day, that 4 vito is the equal
OF her husband. IN. y. Herald.