The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1897-04-02
Wife's Right to Punish Her Children.

In the ma of the criminal court Of
Mecklenburg county as presided e
by Hon. O. P. Meares, there was no
case tried that presented a more Gu
rious or interesting point of law ap-
pertaining to domestic relations than
the cas- of State VS.. H. an Indictment
for assault and battery. The facts in
that case briefly related were as fol-
lows: H. and T. We're neighbors, T.
being a married man and having a son
about s years old. T. was absent from
home for two weeks, and during his
absence Mrs. T. had great difficulty in
controlling the son, who appeared to
have been a Very unruly boy. One day
during the absence of her husband,
Mrs. T. requested H., her neighbor, to
take her son to the field with him and
give her some relief from the constant
worry Of trying to keep him out of
mischief. II. objected upon the ground
that the boy was unruly and would
give him trouble. Thereupon Mrs. Il.
begged H. to take the boy, and old
II hat she gave HON full authority
to whip the boy if he was not Obedi-
ent to ii. in every respect. II. then
agreed to take the boy upon condition
that he be allowed to chastise him if
he saw fit. In a short time the boy
began to throw rocks at his horses,
and refused to stop after commands
and threats. ~ThereupOn H., relying
upon the authority granted by Mrs. t.,
proceeded to chastise the boy d
ately with a switch. Upon the boys re-
turn home the mother made no COM
plant, but on the next day the father
returned and hearing of the affair, be-
came very angry, and proceeded to
have II. arrested for assault and bat
terry on the boy. Upon the trial of the
case before Judge Meares the attorney
for H. sought to justify the assault
Upon the ground that Mrs. T. had given
him permission, but the solicitor for
the state argued that the wife had no
right to give another person authority
to whip her child-that the
alone had such power.
The case was argued at great length
and the law as to the respective rights
and powers of the husband and wife in
the family government from the most
ancient times was considered. After
hearing the argument, Judge MeareS,
who was admitted on all sides to be a
most admirable judge of criminal law,
held that the wife had no right to au-
thorize another to whip her child, and,
in fact, he told the jury that in strict
law, the wife lac no right to chastise
her child herself, except by tne consent
of her husband, actual or implied. In
the Judges view the husband was the
supreme head of the household, and he,
and such as he alone should authorize,
had the legal right to punish the child
by whipping. The defendant was, of
course. convicted under the charge, but
no appeal taken as the fine imposed
was nominal. 1t may be regretted that
the case was not carried up, because 1t
would be interesting to learn what our
highest court would say on the point
The position taken by Judge Meares
was a startling one to the wives ana
mothers of Charlotte. Most of whom
were under the impression that they,
and not their husbands, had the high
est right to punish the children; and 1t
would doubtless take more than one
supreme court decision to
them of their error. While we are obllg-
ed to concede that according to the an
cient rules of the common law, Judge
Meares was undoubtedly right, yet we
are bound to believe that, according to
the tendency of modern decisions, the
court would now hold that the wife had
equal authority with the to
punish the children.-Charlotte OBJ
server.