The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-04-22
WAS HUSBAND
A TRESPASSER 2
The Supreme Court Decides
That He Was Not.
JUDGE CLARK DISSENTS
Holds That Married Woman Can Forbid Her
Husband to Go Upon Her Prem
ises Not Occupied by

Can husband be a trespasser upon his
wife's premises?
The Supreme Court yesterday decided
he could not.
But Chief Justice Clark thinks he can,
and so he filed dissenting opinion.
The case is one of great interest, as
it involves the question to what extent
wife may control her own property.
Here the wife had abandoned the premi-
SEES belonging to her and had forbidden
her husband to occupy them. Was he
then a trespasser if he persisted in doing
so:
Here is the case:
negro named Albert Jones and his
wife lived near Holly Springs on premises
belonging to the wife. She had good
grounds for believing that Jones had been
for some time living in adultery with
a woman in the neighborhood, and ac-
oordingly left home. That was in No
vember, 1892 Before that she had urged
upon her husband to leave her premises.
so that she might live there alone, and
he had refused to do So Shortly after
she left her home, she ordered Jones to
leave and not enter again. But he kept
on going in and out and refused to vacate,
until finally the wife had warrant is
sued for trespass. Jones was found guilty
in the court of Justice Of the Peace
and fined. He appealed to the Superior
court, and upon the above facts the court
adjudged that the defendant Jones was
not guilty of trespass.
Tho opiuiop nf tI Surname Court writ
ten by Justice Montgomery, sees no error
in the judgment, holding that, although
the wife may suspect the husband of i'm
moral conduct, they are still in the eye
of the law husband and wife, and there
has been no separation by q decree for
divorce This case presents the novel
feature" says the opinion of a wife
seeking a judicial separation from her
husband by the criminal action of tres
pass
Justice Montgomery further on in the
opinion writes: Are not the purpose
and effect of the present action, if sue
cessful, the separation of the husband
and the wife and the destruction of the
home relations? Can it be that wife
may, whenever she sees fit, leave her
home and take up her residence in anoth-
err place, refuse the society of her hus-
band and indict him as a trespasser if he
puts his foot upon the wife's abandoned
property, the place he has made his
home? Have we reached that stage of
social progress when the sacred relation
of husband and wife and the hallowed
influences of the home are converted into
mere traditions without power to inf1u
ence, and dreams instead of relations?'
Chief Justice Clark, in his dissenting
opinion quotes the Constitution, Art. X,
Sec. 6, which provides that the property
of any female, whether acquired before
or after marriage "shall be and remain
the sole and separate property of such
female" the only restriction being the
requirement of the written assent of the
husband to conveyances by her.
Judge Clark goes on to say: "Since
the Constitution. as has thus been held
uniformly, secures to the wife the com
plete ownership and control of her prop
erty as il she were unmarried and has
swept away any common law right or
estate the husband might at one time
have had as tenant by the curtesy mi
tiate'. 1t follows that the defendant had
no more right to enter upon his wife's
land, qua land, and continue to reside
there after being forbidden to
do so than if she were unmarried
This court has never trencheG upon the
above plain provision of the Constitution
so as to give him a right to occupy her
realty and use it for his residence. in her
permanent absence therefrom contrary to
her prohibition. His occupation of the
dwelling and continuous use of the prem
Uses might well prevent her getting
tenant or exercising the complete owner
ship and control guaranteed to her By