Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-12-12
MAY BEAT HIS WIFE
Supreme Court Rules Against
Woman Seeking Damages.
VOTE OF FOUR TO THREE
Justices Harlan, Holmes and Hughes
Dissent.

The United States Supreme Court to-
day, in the case of Jessie Z. Thompson
against Charles n. Thompson, affirmed
the decision of the Court of Appeals of
dhe District of Columbia, deciding that
a woman cannot bring an action to re-
cover damages for assault and battery
upon her person by her husband. The
plaintiff had sued for $4,000 damages.
The court held that it did not believe
it was the intention of Congress in the
enactment of the District of Columbia
code to revolutionize the law governing
the relation of husband and wife as be-
tween themselves.
The court said that it must be presuhied
that he1egisIators who enacted this stat
lie were familiar with the -estab-
liShed policy of the common law and were
not unmind,ul of the radical changes In
the policy OF centuries which such leSis-
lation as is here suggested wound bring
about. Concediug it to be within the
power of the Legislature to make this
alteration in the law, if it saw mt to do
So nevertheless such radical and far
reaching changes should only be wrought
by language so clear and plain as to be
unmistakaple evidence of the legislative
intention.
Continuing the court said that had it
been the legislative purpose not only te
permit the wife to bring suit free from
her husbands participation and control,
but to bring acton against him also for
injuries of person or property as though
they were strangers, thus emphasizing
and publishing differences which Oti.er-
wise may not be serious, 1T wou.u have
been easy to have expressed that intent
in terms of irresistible clearness.
Dissenting Opinion Given.
Justices Harlan. Holmes and Hughes
dissented from the judgment of the court.
The decision was thus made affirmative
by a vote of four to three, the affirmative
vote being in reality a minority of the
whole bench.
Jusuce harlan delivered the dissenting
opinion He said that the new Distr4ct
OF Columbia code made radical change
in the relations of man and wife. Under
1t the wife may sue separately In regard
10 property She can sue separately IN
regard TO torts committed against her. III
the husband tries to get her property, or
TO even damage ner property. she can sue
him and yet, under The decision OF the
court today. she cannot sue him FOL
damake TO her person.
Justice Harlan said that he and his col
leagues who dissented could not assume
that Congress intended any such thing
lie could not believe that Congress IN
tended to allow the wife 10 sue for DIM
age TO her property and prevent her from
suing for damages to her person. He
held that the decision defeath the clel
will OF Congress and that the court
virtually adds words TO its statutes not
provided by Congress when it was en-,
acted.
Opinion of Majority.
The majority opinion of the court helC
that the statute was not intended to giv'
right of action as against the husband
but TO allow the wife i'll her own name t
maintain actions of tort which at com
mon law must be brought in the join
names OF herself and husband.
The majority opinion also said that re
lief can be found for such atrociou
grounds under the statutes relating T.
divorce and alimony and that any othe
construction placed upon the statut
would open the doors of the court to &C
cusations of all sorts of one Spous,
against the other which would not be 70
the public welfare.