Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-02-24
RIGHTS OF MARRIED WOMEN
An Interesting Decision by the Court Of
Appeals.
A Much-Mooted Question Finally Set
tled-Deserted Wives Capable of
Maintaining Suit.


Maintaining Suit.
In the case Of Boldina c. Reesch VS.. Au-
gust Schwartz, decided in the Court of APP
peals, the question at issue was, Has wife
where deserted by her husband the right to
naintain a common law action? And Mr..
Chief Justice Alvey, in expressing the unan-
imous opir ion of the court declared that
she could. The question has long been
mooted one in the District, it is said, and
the courts decision was, therefore, awaited
with considerably more than ordinary in
terest.
The plaintiff, Mrs. Reesch, sued Schwartz
In assumpsit for goods sold and delivered,
and the good will of business; for work
and materials furnished, and for money due
her on account stated the amount claimed
being 500. Schwartz pleaded, first, that he
was not indebted as alleged; second, tnat
he did not promise as alleged, and third
that Mrs. Reesch. at the commencement of
the suit was and still is, married woman,
me inc wife OF one Carl Reesch' VINO Is sun sun
living, and that the cause of action was not
a matter having relation to the sole and
separate property Of the wife.
Mrs. Reesch's Flea.
Mrs. Reesch joined issue on the first two
pleas, replying to the third that, at the
commencement Of the suit, she was, and
still is, the wife of Carl Reesch, but that
her husband on or about the oath Of Octo-
Der, 1856, whilst resident with the plain
tiff in this District, willfully deserted and
abandoned the plaintiff that since that
time he had continued such desertion and
abandonment; that she did not know where
ne Is; that he had contributed nothing to-
ward her support; that she was compelled
to, and did, support herself by her own ex-
ertion by carrying on a business as femme
sole trader, partly with property belonging
TO her husband at the time of aesertion,
which property was exempt trom execution
or attachment at law, and partly with
property acquired by her own exertion
since the desertion of her by her husband;
that July ,, 1855, she sold and disposed of
the property SO acquired to Schwartz, and
that the amount sued for was the balance
OF the purchase money due thereon.
schwartz demurred to Mrs. Reesch's spe-
clal replication, but the demurrer was over
ruled, whereupon he Joined issue upon the
allegations in reply to his third plea. The
case then went to trial, and Mrs. Reesch Cb-
tanned Judgment for the amount claimed.
number of exceptions were noted by the
oetendant but did not appear in the appeal
taken by Schwartz. the case coming before
the Court of Appeals on an appeal by him
from the action of the trial court in over
ruling his motion in arrest of Judgment,
that motion, by concession of the parties,
presenting the only question for decision
by the appellate court.
Judge Alvey's Decision.
THE general common law rule" ex-
plains Judge Alvey in writing the opinion
of the court, applicable to a femme covert
which denies to her the right to maintain
a common law action without the joinder
of her husband remains in force; but that
general rule, like many others of common
law origin. has had engrafted upon it, from
time to time, several well defined eAcep-
tons. These exceptions have been the pro-
duct of improved conditions of society, and
the necessities of destitute wives, and have
peeh introduced by the courts to avoid the
cruel and degrading consequences to the
wife or the neglect and desertlon of the
husband. AS instances of this, il the hus-
band be baniShed or eXiled, or has ahiured
the realm, or being a foreigner, residing
abroad, apart from his wife, whom he has
refused 10 support, such conditions. from
the necessity of the case, introduced eNcep-
tons TO the general rule of The wife's dis
ability to contract. and, in such exceptional
cases she has been held capable of con-
tracing, and of suing and being sued. as a
femme sole. in sucn case both the wife
and her creditors would be remediless with
out such exceptions to the general rule
In support of such ruling Chief Justice
Alvey cites kents COM, 154; Coke's Lit
Teton. 132 b., and kents COM, 1861, re-
ftrring to the case of Bean VS.. Morgan, 4
Niece rd'S rep. las. where IL was held that
II the husband departs from the state with
the intent to reside abroad, and without
inc Oh MS VIE becomes
competent TO contract and to sue and be
sued, as femme sole The same principle"
says the chief justice, was adopted in the
case of Gregory VS.. PIERCE, Metc., rep,
41S, where it was held that if the husband
deserts his wife absolutely and completely
by continued absence from the state, and
with an intent to renounce de facto the
marital relations, the wife may and be
sued as femme sole. And the period of de-
Sertion is important only il may be in
dicative of the in IGNITION of the husband to
make his desertion permanent or other
WISE
Cases Cited.
This same principle remarked Chief
Justice Alvey. would seem to be the
tabl;shed law of this District" and he cites
the case of Rhea agt Rhenner. l Pet, 10a.
case taken to the United States Supreme
Court from this District, wherein it was
held that when the wife is left by the hus-
band without support, and she has traded
a femme sole, and has obtained credit as
such, she ought to be held liable for her
d eots whether the husband is banished for
his crimes or has voluntarily abandoned his
wife.
The property of her husband left in her
ossession, the Court of Appeals holds,
must be taken to have been intended as
means of support of her and her family,
ana to render such means available Ii must
be taken and intended TO have been coupled
with power of disposition. That was a
question Of intention for the jury, and the
]
and abandoned the plaintiff must, after
verdict, be taken to mean that he had de-
serted her and abandoned and renowned
this jurisdiction.
After explaining that upon motion in
arrest of judgment, the plaintiff is en-
titled to every amendment of law that can
he reasonably made in support of the YER
dict. and that everything that the defendant
could object will be presumed to have been
made and urged at the trial, and II must
be intended that they were overruled Mer-
rick agt. Bank of Metropolis. Gill. 50,
~; Steimel agt. Hogg, l VIM. Sannd., 22S)
Chief Justice Alvey concludes as follows:
I'VE are of opinion that, upon the applica-
ton of this principle of intendment, the
verdict Is sustainable upon the pleadings in
the cause. and, therefore. the motion in
arrest was properly overrulei, and the judg-
ment must. consequently. be affirmed"
shocked Even Kentucky COngrcga-
ton.
From the Louisville Courier Journal.
Three young ladies' who attended church
yesterday found themselves in very en-
barrassing position. One of Them owns a
song book, which she always carries with
her when attending service. 1t happened
that bottle of whisky was broken on the