The commonwealth. (Scotland Neck, N.C.) 1896-1929, 1897-03-25
AS IN CAROLINA.
PATCHING AND DARNING.
The Rights Of a Husband.
Philadelphia Record.

Philadelphia Record.
The women IN England and in this
country have established most OF the
rights for which they have contended
The tyrant man has yielded his prerog
atives be has gracefully laid down his
arms, and surrendered at discretion
What more will be required OF him re-
mains to be seen. The Courts, howev.
er, IN several of our States have no
tions that they do not seem disposed to
relinquish. In the old North State
for example, the Supreme Court has
recently expressed It's views on the
rights of a husband. They are views
that the more advanced wives will be
apt to challenge. 1t seems that hus-
band in that State, renowned tor its tar
aud whiskey stills, brought an action
for damages against druggist who, in
violation of his express orders sold lau-
danum to his wife, in consequence OF
which she became confirmed victim
of-the opium habit, by reason whereof
the husband lost her services and COM
panionship. The Supreme Court held
that the action was we'll founded, and
thus stated its reasons:
GA married woman still owes to her
husband, Notwithstanding her greatly
improved legal status, the duty of COM
panionship, and of rendering all such
services in his house as her relations OF
wife and mother require of her. The
husband, as a matter of law, is entitled
to her time, her wages, her earnings
and the product of her labor, skill and
industry. He may contract to furnish
her services to others, and may sue for
them, Or for their loss, in her own
name And 1t seems to be a most
reasonable proposition of law that who
ever willfully joins with married
woman in doing an act which deprives
her husband of her services and of her
companjonship, is liable to the hus-
band in damages for his conduct. And
the defendants owed the plaintiff the
legal duty not to sell to his wife opium
in the form of large quantities of lau-
was, by using them, destroying her
mind and body, and thereby causing
loss to the husband. The defendants
and the wife Joined IN qolng acts ln]u-
rious to the rights of the husband.
From the facts stated in the complaint
the defendants were just as responsible
as if they had forced her to take the
drug, for they had their own part in
forming the habit in her, and then con-
t1nued the sale of it to her after she
had no power to control herself and re-
slst the thirst and that; too, after the
repeated warnings and protests OF the
husband. There is no difference be-
tween the principle involved in this
action and the principle upon which a
husband can recover from third per-
son damages for assault and battery
upon his wife,"
What say the Colonial Danes and
the Daughters of the Revolution to this
statement of the relations of man and
wife? What pride can they take in the
exploits of their ancestors when such
servitude to their descendants in any
part of this land of freedom is still their
unhappy lot? According to the Su-
preme Court of North Carolina, the
husband is not only entitled to the SER
vices of his wife, but "he may contract
to furnish her services to others. Thus
after having darned his stockings and
put patches on his breeches, the hus-
band may contract to furnish his wife's
services to his neighbor, for the pur-
pose of putting his stockings and
breeches in similar good condition.
Can principle of law like this exist,
even III North Carclln, without arous-
ing the special wonder of the sister
hood everywhere, and without special
effort being made to expunge and -ex-
tirpate 1t from the jurisprudence of
every part of our common country?