The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-12-29
LAWS ABOUT WOMEN.
Different Legal Standing i'm New
York and Missouri.
Kansas City Journal.

Kansas City journal.
Women in Missouri are indebted to Judge
WOOD, or the St Louis Circuit Court, for a
decision which lays stress upon the point
that a woman does not lose her identity in
marriage. The case decided by Judge Wood
Is worth notice as current matter of
more than ordinary human interest. The
case, as stated in the news reports, is as
follows: ION Feb 20 1885, William j. Nc
Pherson, a resident of Rochester, N Y,
was married in st. Louis to Mary b. Locke,
a resident of that city. About a week
later Mr.. Mcpherson returned to Rochester,
and shortly after his wife was taken sick,
and on March %, 1895. she died. From the
time of her marriage until her death she
continued to reside in St. Louis. The evil
dence tended to show that she intended to
remove to New York as soon as her health
and business affairs would permit She
left a large amount of real and personal
property, all in ST. Louis. Her brothers,
Horace b. Locke, of st. Louis and William
Z. Locke, OF worcester, Mass, claimed 1T
husband took out letters of administration
in New York, and the Mississippi Valley
Trust Company was granted letters of adj
ministration upon her estate by the Pro-
hate Court, st. Louis. The deceased left no
will, and had no surviving dependents"
The trial of the cause involved the deter
mination of a rational solution of the diff
ficulty presented in conflict between the
inheritance laws of Missouri and New
York. Under the laws of New York the
dies leaving no surviving descendants, Is
not distributable under the statute of dis
tributions, but by the rule of common law.
BY the common law, marriage was an abSo-
Lutte gift to the husband of all the wife S
property. and such as came to her during
coverture: the title was vested In the nus
band If the wife died first II was his
property after, as it before, her death (;
no administration as to the personal estate
was necessary The husbands domicile, IT
was contended by Mr. MCPHERSON, was the
wife's domicile. His residence in New York
made her residence in New York. There
fore, her. estate should be distributable UNI
dor To- IF
souri, law should recognize the New York
law as bearing upon a woman who died
UP the common law theory of marriage,
and pointed out its antiquenesS and even
its brutality of disregard of the wife as
anything more than a chattel of her hus-
band Under the old common law a wife
was little more than slave to her hus-
band something. dearer than his dog or
to Keen ''I her at home by force, to lock her
up to chastise her. This theory, however,
is exploded. Other times, other manners,
Judge Wood pointed out that Missouri IS
more advanced in kindness and consideration
for women than New York, for In this state
the law recognizes the wife as having sep
arate existence, separate rights, separate In
terests." In this State. so generally believed
to be backward in many things. the personal
property which wife may have owned prior
TO marriage and all that she may acquire
during coverture by gift or otherwise, Is
and continues to be her separate property.
bands contention that his wife's property
should come to him under the common law.
Judge Wood declares, with most delightful
pointedness. that by the same common law
the husband might defend charge of wife
beating by urging that he used. as the COM
mon law permitted. a stick as thick as his
thumb. Judge Wood says 1t would be
strange indeed. II Missouri law protected
the separate personal property Of married
woman bringing such property here but af-
fordeG no such protection to q married wo-
man who had never. during coverture. re-
sided outside of the State. and whose prop
eIty had always remained within It's juris-
Cilct.6 n" AGAIN he says, with suggestion Of
humoT: Nothing requires us to love our
neiehbors better than ourselves. and give "a
a New York husband that which we would