The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-08-27
THE RULE OF LOVE.

The movement against government by
In the female sex II there ID any danger
Of the example Of the Texas court of
criminal appeals being followed In that
state an injunction has been ~t@ued pro-
hihiting the defendant from, visiting petit
tioner's wife or writing to her or IN any
way communicating with her.
The prisoner boldly attacked the injunc-
ton as an infringement upon his consti
tutionai right to freedom OF speech and
the pursuit of happiness.
The court did not so consider It; he dis
obeyed the injunction. was imprisoned for
contempt OF court. and raised the Ques-
ton before the appellate court in a ha-
beas corpus proceeding. The court called
attention to another case In which in
junction was authorised whenever relief
to which person Is entitled requires
the restraining OF some act prejudicial to
the applicant" In that case the plaintiff
sued for damages on account OF a partial
alienation Of his wife's affections, and
sought an Injunction to prevent further
alienation.
This Is somewhat OF a return TO the old
notions. Under the common law the hus-
band vas not only given the power TO re-
strain the wife. but might even give her
as he was responsible for her misbehavior
II was reasonable to intrus, him with the
power OF restraining her. by domestic
chastisement. in the same moderation that
man was allowed to correct his appreu-
tees or children. 1t was not until the
20 be doubted, and In that reign the law
was changed so that a woman had the
same security Of the peace against her
husband that stranger had. Yet, Back
stone says. the lower rank Of people who
were always fond OF the old common Law
long continued TO claim md exert the
ancient privilege and the courts Of law
until quite recently permitted a husband
20 restrain a wife of her liberty. in case
OF any gross misbehayior.
In the United States this idea was pre-
served In cur laws. ana many interesting
questions have arisen as to the exten. TO
which the authority might be carried.
The husband. as the head OF the family
was regarded as having a right OF gentle
restraint over his wife's movements He
might lock her up 10 prevent her from
eioping or going into bad company. or
wandering her money. and the writ Of
habeas corpus has been refused her when
s,,
OF authority. The English law was fol-
lowed which laid !, down that where a
wife ahssnts hesNlf from her husband.
on account Of no misconduct un his part.
and he afterwards by stFasaxam obtains
| possession % her person. and she declares
h., intention Of leaving him again when
| ever she can. he has a right TO restrain
| her Of her liberty
| More nearly approaching the Texas cass
| Is ere decided in Mississippi. where Il was
decided that the husband has the pvrfec;
| legal right ~ determine who shsi: De re-
| ceivesi a, the matrimonial mansion and
who shall be excluded, and hsace. IL in
| ,he exercise 81 sais right he prohibits MS
| wife fgors receiving = certain visitor st
| tina; place, Il constitutes TO legal excuse
fo~ an abandonment az ias matrimonial
/ dognb,ae
/ Public sentiment has changed. and with
| 81 this century az English court has de-
| ntss The right q a husband 90 ceusine his
| vile 10 hts ewn house IN order to give
/ hint an opportunity - regain her a1ee-
! tlelss ard proven: Der from coming nnde.
| tire Influence ~ her relatives who nssAt
alternate her .ro1a him. The Law takes .