The public ledger. [volume] (Maysville, Ky.) 1913-1968, 1920-05-10
ENGLISH JUDGE
PUTS NO VALUE
UPON HUSBANDS
Ruling of English Jurist Sets Whole
Nation Talking On Value Of
Husbands and Wives.

London. What is the value In
money of a wife toher husband? What
value, If any, has husband to his
wife?
These questions have been raised in
acute form by Mr. Justice McCardie In
the English divorce court, who dis
oussed them both in a considered judg-
ment which he delivered recently. His
rulings have set all England talking,
and it is no exaggeration to say that
more people are interested in them
than in the peace treaty or the league
o fnations, or even in the high cost of
living.
Justice McCardie says that the value
of a wife depends on her kind and
quality, and he declared that in law at
least the best husband that was ever
trained is not worth one red cent to
his wife.
1t should be explained that when an
Englishman sues his erring spouse for
divorce he also sues her guilty partner
for damages. Until recently these dam
ages were assessed by the jury, and of
course, like all jury given verdicts,
varied according to the solf-hearted-
ness or otherwise of the twelve good
men and true. Under recent amend
ment, however, the fixing of divorce
,Io,,ono, ,,,og giva ntO tho iudpa II
was the need of some STANDARD rule
which moved Justice McCardie to de-
lived his homily.
He had held up six cases in which
divorce had been granted and damages
demanded for consideration and deliv-
cred his decision on all six at the same
time. If one can judge from his rul-
ing, the value of wife is from moth
ing to S750-pre-war money value. In
three of the cases he gave no damages
at all, in one $125, in one 1915, and in
another $3.50.
Mr.. Justice McCardie explained that
the theory on which divorce damages
are granted is that in English law
wife is her husbands chattel and he is
entitled to damages from the man who
deprives him or or Injuries that chat
tel. The value of the chattel the judge
declared may vary considerably how
ever. a wife who helped in her hus-
bands business would obviously be
worth more to him than one who sim
ply spent the proceeds of that bust
ness. A good housekeeper would be
worth more than slattern. If wife
was of wanton disposition it was OBJ
vious that the value would be less than
that of virtuous woman.
The Judge also declared that in his
opinion damages could not be given
against correspondent who did know
that the wife was a married woman.
Such damages would SAVIOUR of pun
ishment for misconduct and the di-
vorce court was not a court of morals,
while woman who passedherself OFF
as unmarried while she really was a
wife must be deemed valueless.
After discussing the value of wife
the judge announced that while the
authorities were not very clear he was
satisfied that a wronged wife could not
sue her husbands associate for dam
ages for the reason that she had no
property interest in her husband, In
the eyes of the law wife has no such
interest in her husbands services as L
husband has in those of his wife.
The valulessness of a husband is
therefore satisfactorily settled, but Mr.,
Justice McCardie has left his valuation
of a wife incomplete. He has only
dealt with the shop soiled and dam
aged specimens. When will he assess
the value of wife of first rate quality
well trained and warranted kind in
harness?