The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1895-11-11

/
might not never come back, The de-
PENDANT said he loved his wife and chill
dren, more than anything else in the
world. Had a habit Of using profane
| language, but never swore at his wife
or family. Told his wife she could have
the team to make visit Nothing said
about going to her parents to stay
Looked anXiously for letter from my
wife. When he got home found every
thing stripped. When my wife went
put bag Of oats in the carriage, and
some potatoes. Said he would come af-
ter her and the children, Never made
any threat to his wife and family.
In the opinion of the court this evil
dence as recited is the most important
and significant. By the operation of
the common laws wifes body is the
property of her husband; In other
words, a slave. The statute laws which
take the place of the common laws,
when the two come in conflict, treat
wife and her relations to her husband
In an altogether different manner, and
place the wife on an equal footing with
the husband in many respects. The
conflict between the common laws and
those made by the statute, or the au-
thority of the state, can be given by
single illustration. At common law
Fishing and flowling" is free, but by
statute law it is made a crime in many
instances.
1t is a we'll settled principle of statute
law-and all laws are supposed to be
founded on reason and common sense
and authorities have been quoted by
the learned counsel for the defendant
to maintain it, that wife must accept
such home as the husband provides
and according to his financial means.
If the husbands means and income are
large, then it should be very easy to
satisfy all the reasonable wants of the
family. If the husband is poor in this
| worlds goods, then it must be expected
that economy and less expenditure in
every department will be the watch
words" AT the time of the marriage
the wife takes her chances-it is 'for
better or for worse until DEATH" and
it might be changed to fit some condi-
tions so as to read until divorced. This
is also the case with the husband.
In addition to the authorities quoted
| ~AAS
plaintiff and the defendant, the learned
associate justice gives the following as
to the liability of the husband for con-
tracts made by his wife: In Baldwin's
Digest, page SO, in the case of Shelton
VS.. Pendleton, Is Conn, AL, it reads as
follows: 1.-THE liability of the husband
for the contracts of his wife arises,
either by reason of his assent to, or APP
prevail Of them or because the law mas
imposed upon him the duty of supply
ing her with necessaries during the
marriage. until She has relinquished or
forfeited a right to claim Them by her
own voluntary act, misconduct or
crime"
Married life-and also in the practice
of domestic economy-is. replete with
errors and inconsistencies, and 1t Is OBJ
viously impossible to eliminate or TO
avoid them altogether. IN this case the
defendant has a young and attractive
wife. She has borne him two children,
one now an infant and a bright, active
boy four years of age. 1t is not neces-
sary to say that she should be treated
by her husband with that respect and
u consideration that is due at all times
and under every conceivable circum-
stance to wife and mother. 1t $
expected that this fact is understood
by every one.
Mr.. Scranton, a young man not vet
thirty years of age, and Mrs. Scranton
should, without delay, harmonic all
their differences-no matter whether
they be great or small-and commence
| Air. chn md aNa1i
full journey of life anew. Mr.. Scranton
has given evidence by himself and by
his attorney that he is not only ready,
but anxious to do this. This court es-
tablished. by the laws of this common
wealth ond the broad and fundamental
principles Of equity and justice, places
faith in this testimony. His wife, like
a Christian woman, should forgive MN
once more and forget all the unpleas-
antness of the past.
Their children--just entering upon the
threshold of life-silently demand this,
and in their innocence seem to call upon
the court to protect them. Their pres
ence in the court room brings to mind
the necessity of parental care. The sum
that the plaintiff--the father of Mrs.
Observation-Disclosures ny HlS dltoi MY -
his bill of particulars, namely, twenty
four dollars for eight weeks board, at
three dollars per week, Is insignificant
and sinks altogether out of sight when
compared with the prospective and pos
sible attainment of this happy result.
There is a prominent feature of this
case which the court cannot possibly
overlook, There has been no evidence
of any kind presented to this court to
show that in the four or five years of
married lffe--Ip to the very date that
the wife left the tbed and board" of her
husband-that the defendant did not
provide sufficiently for his young and
interesting family.
Mrs Doolittle-the mother-in-law-in
, her sworn testimony says that 'they
, had a plenty to eat but the clothing
was not what it should be, or to use
her words, not sufficient. She failed,
! however, in an important particular.
, Whether the clothing was lacking in
: being suitable for the seasons and the
ages Of the children or in the inexorable
and constant demands of fashion. This
court also finds that there has been nc
contract, either expressed or implied
written or verbal-between the plain
tiff and the defendant, relative to the
hoard IF III defend a ntts wife q nd in