The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-31
Poor DOwntrOdden Man Helped
by Supreme Court.
Wife Can Not Collect Damages
for His Beatings.
WILL SAVE MONEY,
Judge West Figures 1t Will
Amount to Thousands Here.
U. s. Attorney Orders Extra
Copies of the Opinion.

Rights of the patient, plodding and
long suffering married man have been
upheld in a decision of the United
States supreme court, reported to the
office of Harry ]. Bone, United States
attorney, in which the court says that
no matter how much a man may
abuse, beat or humiliate that second
party to the matrimonial bond, his
wife, she can not collect judgment
against him for personal damages.
In one lone contention Charles N:
Thompson, a resident of the District of
Columbia is saved the payment of
$4,000 for the chastisement of his
better half and Judge West, member
elect of the supreme court, has fig
ured that in Kansas alone the already
much wronged husbands will be saved
the payment of 100000 personal
damages the first year thu ruling is
does not mean that the, n1eek-eyed
man of. the. house NAV chastise his
weaker companion without answering
to the criminal law for his action. 1t
only means that WHEY can not levy
on hubby's bank account in a civil ac-
ton and secure the price OF an auto
mobile or trip to Europe as conse-
quence.
Fog the first time in the history of
civil procedure, a case OF this klno
reached the United States courts and
already the Topeka Office has ordered
an extra lot of these decisions to meet
the demand from men anxious ito keep
posted as to the privileges in their
own household.
Jessie E. Thompson said in her petit
ton that Charles n. THOMPSON was
her husband in the ordinary form, and
in seven counts she charges divers as
SaultS upon her person by her nus
band, for which she sought to recover
damages in the amount of $70,O for
assault and battery upon her person.
An issue of law being made to the
demurrer to the defendants pleas, the
supreme court of the District of Co
lumbia held that such action would
not lie under the statutes.
In discussing the law in the matter,
Judge West said:
AT the common law the husband
| and wife We're regarded as one. The
legal existence of the wife during the
cOVerture being merged in that of the
husband, and, generally speaking, the
wife was incapable of making con-
tracts, of acquiring property, or dis
| posing of the same without her hus-
bands consent. They could not enter
| into contracts with each other, nor
were they liable for torts committed
| by one against the other. In purSu-s
ance of more liberal policy in favor
| of the wife, statutes have been passed
| in many of the states looking to the
relief of married woman from the
disabilities imposed upon her as
|
Under these laws she has been en-
| powered to control and dispose of her
| own property free from the eenstraint
| of the husband, in many instances to
carry on trade and business, and to
| deal with third persons as though she
were single woman. The wife has
further been enabled by the passage
of such statutes to sue for trespass
upon her rights in property and to
protect the security of her person
against the wrongs and assaults of
| others. The obvious purpose is, in
some respects, to treat the wife as a
| femme sole, and to a large extent to
alter the common law theory of the
unity of husband and wife,
| Had Mrs. Thompson won her ia
nous case against her husband. law
yers say there would have Immediate
~ been an uprising in the nation to
secure judgments for personal dam
ages for alleged abuse and upbraid-
| ings and opinions regarding big judg-
ments are not based on actions in the
past, but the probable active litiga-
| ton of the future.
| If Mrs. Thompson's idea that $10,-
900 is a just remuneration for each
whipping, Topeka police court records
show that the monthly assessments
/ against the heads of households would
run into the hundreds of thousands