The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-02-02
HUSBAND WHIPS WIFE
Shall He Be Permitted 70 Con-
tinue That Brutality
SOME FACTS AND LAW
THI1 COURTS WILL NOT INTER
FERE TO PUNISH HUSBAND.
he HAS NO R'G4T TO ute'P
But If t4e Uses Stick no Largs han
q Mans Thumb He Will F4ot be
Guilty OF Any Off4nse.
soME FACTS AND LAW
Hg HAS NO R'e4T TO ~se'P

| Guilty OF ANY Offznse.
To the Editor Trusting that the cause
! in which this communication is written
will be sufficient apology for IT'S appear
ance I'M print. be- to submit a sugges-
tron to the General Assembly now in SEES
sion.
1T is the law i'm this State, as I'M all the
States, that if one MAN strikes or Of
fers or attempts to strike another MAN
he shall he guilty of a misdemeanor. 1t
is likewise the law that if a man strike
or offer or attempt to strike a woman
he shall be guilty of q crime provided
the woman is not the wife he has sworn
to protect The courts Of this State do
say the husband has not the RIGHT to
whip the wife oh no, to give him this
RIGHT would be barbarous. 1T would
shock civilization. But our courts de-
CLEARING the common law say they will
not interfere to punish the husband for
moderate correction even if there has
been no provocation for it" (StateN VS..
Rlhodes-61 n. c., page 453.l
Mr.. Wharton Vol. /, Grim. Law Sect.
633) says: '|By The common law the hus-
band possessed the power of chastsing
his wife, though the tendency OF the
criminal courts of the present day is to re-
gard the martial relation as no defence TO
the battery Quoting from the Supreme
court of Mississippi he further says, Per
hans. however, the husband should still
be permitted to exercise the right of
moderate chastisement in cases of great
emergency. and to use SALUTARI
RESTRAINTS IN EVERY CASE OF
MISBEHAVIOR without subjectfng
himself to vexatious prosecutions" Mr..
Wharton continues: Nor it has been said,
can he at common law be convicted of
battery upon her unless he infbcts per
manent INJURY upon her, or is guilty of
malignant cruelty" The italics are mine.
The Supreme court OF our State has
modified the common law very slightly.
They say IN State VS. Black (Winston's
law-page 266) that husband can not be
convicted for a battery upon his wife IN
less he inf1icts permanent injury, or uses
such excessive violence or cruelty as in
dictates malignity or vindictiveness."
In State VS.. Rhodes the jury returned
this special verdict: I'VE find the defen-
dant struck Elizabeth Rhodes, his wife,
three ticks with switch about the size
OF one of his fingers Out not as large as
a mans thumb) WITHOUT ANY PRO
VOCATION except some words uttered
by her and not recollected by the wit
ness" Judge Little, who tried this case
twas OF the opinion that the defendant
had a right TO whip his wife with a switch
no larger than his thumb" and upon this
special finding OF the jury the defendant
was adjudged not guilty and discharged.
Judge Reade wrote the opinion Of the
court and the very first sentence from
the pen Of that able judge and good man
should convince amy one that the law OF
this State on this important subject is
entirely wrong. Judge Reade says THE
violence complained Of would without
question have constituted a battery if
the subject of 1t had not been the DE-
PENDANTS WIFE" Can this be pos
sible? lie the person assaulted had not
been the WIFE of the defendant he
would clearly have been guilty OF viola
tion of the law says the court. Can 1t
be that the civilization and manhood
OF our State permit the husband TO treat
his own wife in manner he would not
dare treat another man? Upon what good
ground should the courts withhold their
protection from the wife7
The learned judges of our courts, them
selves shocked at the idea Of the estab-
Eshing of such principle, declare that
no such RIGHT EXISTS In the husband,
but that the courts win not INTER-
FERE. What difference does it make 90
the wife after she has been whipped
after her womanhood has undergone this
unspeakable degradation whether the
courts absolutely give the husband the
right to whip or whether they simply de-
cline 80 protect her? To her 1T Is all the
same. Legal fictions can avail her nUth-
ing. Nice distinctions to her are mock
cry. If she is left to the mercy OF a brutal
husband.
| Our courts occupy the absurd position
OF saying TO the husband; lyon shall not
have the right TO whip your wife, but if
you do see fit to whip her, even without
provocation we will not punish you at
all unless ron do her some permanent or
| serious injury. Use a switch not larger
! birch il you wish, give her a goodly num-
| Der of hicks, punish her as you would
your pointer dog, if she disobeys you or
gives you "sase," just so you don't draw
the blood or infict some permanent IN
I Jury. t1B Is JuC duluOIIty uiiG iAuS-
bands of the State have from our courts.
| do not pretend in intend to criticize the
great and good men who have presided
ever our courts. They have simply de-
eiared the law. They have no authority
| to make law. This is a Legislative func-
ZION entirely.
I! And shall not forget 30 mention THAT
/ Judge Augustus S. Merrfnon, whlle on
the Supreme bench did make some modi-
hcation OF the common law rule I'M State
70. Huntley-e1 N O., page GIT.
/ In this case the husband ''whiIped the
wife with q switch not larger than the
little finger OF the usual size OF a wo-
mans hand, that the whipping was OF
such violence as no break the skin and
raise whelks ON her person and 10 draw
fine blood so that 1t came through heq
clothing so as 10 be seen ON the outside
of her clothing in three or four places.
JJpon these facts Judge Merrinon reyers
( an. ur, Isr,r of tho touar rayl1sf nd "a n