Juniata sentinel and Republican. [volume] (Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa.) 1873-1955, 1897-03-17
THE RIGHTS OF A RUsBAND
Under the abovs head the Pbila
delpLia Record of March IA, 1897,

.
The women 10 Eagland snd il
this couptry lave established mist
OF the rights for which they have
confer nded. Tie lyrans man las
yielded his prercgatives ne has
gracefully laid down his arms. au.i
surrendered al discretion. WHAT
more wi ! be required of him re-.
mains to he SEN. The Courts. hona
ever, IN several cf our states have
notions tha. they d. not seem dis
posed to relioeuish Ii the cid
North State, fer example, the Su-
pr, me Court has recently expressed
It's views on the rights of a husband
They are views that the more sd
vlrced wives will be apt 10 chai-
lepge. It Seems that a husband in
that State, renowned for its tar and
wi.iskey stills, brought an action fer
damages sg,ins. a druggist, who, in
violation Of his express orders, sold
iaudanum to his wife, il consequence
of which SIZE became a Confirmed
victim of the opium habit, by reason
whereof, the Husband lad lest her
services ard mparionship. TIE
S,pi eme Court held that The action
was vel, founded AID thus states It's
reasons:
! A married women st,ll owes t.
b r husband, Notwithstanding her
CRAFTY improved legal status, ths
duty Of csmpanionship, and Of Ten'
dering all such services 10 his house
as her rela tions of wife and mother
II quire Of her The husband, as Il
matter OF law, is entitled to her tiGie,
her wages, her earnings and the
product Of her labor, skili and in
dastry. He may contract to furnish
her services to others, and may sus
for hem, or for their loss In hsr Own
name And it seems 10 be q most
reasonable proposition Of law that
whoever w;lifully joins with & mar
cd wcn IL in DONG al act Which
deprivss her husband OF her services
,and OF her com panionship is iiabe to
the husband il damages for his c1n
duct. Aud the defendants o~ed tie
pl ia!iff tie gal duty rot 10 sell tc
/ his wife opium 10 the form Of large
quantities OF laudapum as beverage
knowing hat she was by using hem,
destroying her mind and body, and
thereby causing loss to the nushana
JEe defendants and tha wife joiaed
III ,'oiog ACTS Injurious TO the rights
OF tho husband. From th4 facts
stated in TIE complain, the dsfea-
darts were just as responsible IS il
tbey bad forced her 10 take the drug,
for they had their own part in form
ing the habit ia her, and continued
the sale of il to her after she bad TO
power 20 control l:ersalf aud resist
the thirst and thIs, toe, after the
repeated warnings ard protests Of
the Husband. There is no differences
between the principle Involved In
this action ana the principle upou
which husband 2an recover from a
third person damages far assault
snd battery upon bis wife.
Wh.t say the CaioDipi Dsmes and
The Daughters of tba Revolution to
this statement OF ths relaiiors Of
man and wife? Wat nriie csn
they take il the exploits o: their nn
ce=,ors when sach seIviiuic 10 their
de aenda1rs in any par Of this Iand
+ freed. n j. still their unhappy lot?
Aceordiu,; +; 70 tbe Slprems Court 81
North Carolina, the husband Is not
OILY entitled TO :ha services ST his
wife, bat lie may contract 20 furnish
her services 10 otilers." Thus after
having dern=d his stockings a"d pat
patch, oa his breacies, tbs husband
may contract t. furnish his wife's
scrv ces to his neighbar, for the par
po5a of putting his stockings aad
hrss ches IN similar good c'nditio1-
C.n princiils of lsw like this exist.
evea in North Ca:olina, without
arousing the special wonder If sec
sis,erhooi everywhere, ali without
special effort being mace 10 ex-
purge and ex;irpate it from the juris-
prudence of every pant Of our com
mon country?