The Hawaiian gazette., 1894-10-12

OFNCS OF The c0vEr BY FREAR. J.
his : al sc:i0u = assuuusit
against husband ard wife for 500
and interest The Circuit Court.
First Circuit Jury varied (0n de
PENDANTS sppezl from the District
Court found a. f1ll0&s: That
Elurs Jones With the consent q her
husband borrowed $40 from the
plsluIIE g. E loan 20 &c returned.
and that 10 payment had been made
70 TIE plaintiff s0i the same : due
% plaintiff with Interest 3
Tne money being borrowed By and
losued 70 tee wife with consent Of
tsr husband and not repaid. she :
liable 1 award judgment 30 the
plaintiff To this decision the de
tsrdsntE excepted OF the ground
that said seton esnUOt &c msiu-
tsIned sgzinst said defendants Joint
y and thst 10 Judgment for pIsin
If can legally Dc entered herein and
Jhst 10 cause Of seton was shown
herein
OF the many views q the facts q
this case suggested by counsel only
one need De considered This Is the
only one supported by the evidence
srd Is that taken by the Circuit
Court. namely that q 81 original
promise made By the wife alone witd
the consent Of her husband during
cOTerture before the passage OF the
Married Wousn's Act Of 1885. the
action having been brought since the
passage Of thEt Act
ne questions raised by the FIST
EroCCd q exception are o. Was
such promise valid. aid % i 20.
Who should De parties defendant IN
81 scti01 upon IL
81 common law the pr1uise would
Esvs been void. because made dur
ng c1vsrt1re- Oar statutes. p-iCr 70
1855. provided suC1g other things
IS follows: The husband =
shall Be accountable n his own Uro-
uerty. for al the debts contracted bT
his wife anterior % and during mar
rage Civ. Code. Sec I2S6- She
shall not. without his consent. unless
othsrwise stipulated BY anterior con-
tract have legal power 70 make con
tracts or 70 slienste o. dispose OF
property. except IS hereinafter pro-
Ti5ed- She shall r7s be eiTiIly re-
sponsible n any cont OF Justice.
without joining her husband n the
suit 10. Sec 1857. Il Is eIear that
the Legislature, il c1rtsiling the
rights which the wife enjoyed
by ancient Hawaiian custom. al
though following the common
law pretty closely. meant
% lszVe TO her a. least the
power 10 contract with her husbands
consent and the liability to be sued
With her husband upon such con
Tract Contracts thus made with his
consent By her during marriage IS
vel a. contracts made By her before
marriage, were placed by the statute
OF much the same footing g the
latter class Of contracts st common
law. that /. the contract vas Ezlid
bit n { suit upon Il during cover
tire both husband ard wife had 10
&c joined
IS 70 parties defeudsrt.-thera
cz1 e 10 question tat the wife
should be { party under the Act Of
1855, Is before, for that Act greatly
eulsrges her liability; ard We are
further Of the opinion that her nus
band should not BE joined With her.
The reason given II hslushiue =
Dole, 8 HsE. 374 and by some courts
elsewhere for the liability Of the h1s
hand for his Eife's ante u1ptisl debts
land By analogy under our statute,
for her past nuptisI debts which are
placed N the same category Is that
Il i for the advantage Of the credit
CTS, since the husband upon MS
marriage takes the property Of his
wife. 70 Ehich the creditors would
otherwise look This ressou, If the
tue one, 10 longer exists, for By the
Act Of 1SSS the property Of the wife
= noS free from the management,
control, debts and obligations OF her
husband Sec Il and she Is entitled
% her earnings Sec g. Another,
ard perhaps the more correct,
historically SPEAKING, though Lot z
more reasonable. view / that the
rule grew out q the node Of pro
esdare and Ezs made for the pro
tsctiou q the wife, rather than for
the advantage q the creditors, the
husband beng e necssssr! party
for Conformity This reason also |
las c-sss1- tOr t1e Act noE provides
tSsc- 81 tEst . married woman nay
sEe ard b sued ID she sane msnuer
- 4 she were sole" Il either case
the reason ot the rule being taken