The Mena weekly star., 1921-11-17
PONEROF HUSBAND
 BRINGS DISPUTES
xecor1ing to Strict Letter of Law uuhby's Rights Are Almost Turk ]ik<. b=s Most Ancient Matrimon-
 i1l Laws Have Been Modified
nu Thomas c. Watson.

Bv Thomas c. Watson.
 xx<44x*za for International News Service
 London, Nov. 15.-- Of the many 1aus on the British statute book none is so ambiguous or misleading as that relating to the power of husband over bis wife.
 Under the strict letter of the law British husband can exercise over hls u.;fe an almost Turk-like dominion But in accordance with the Married Wolnen's Property Act should hus- band live in the house and home which is her property he may only do so pro Vfdiu3 he behaves himself.
 Sh841ld he entertain any of ms fricnd< fhere without first obtaining his uife's permission it is tantamount fo nisbehavior and he can be eJected;; Mosf of the ancient matrimonial riuhts have disappeared. A case, how e2er. cropped up in the law courts the ofhfr day in which an action was brourhf by a husband against his wife father for "harboring her." a re- vive! of an ancient matrimonial right which has almost disappeared.
 Tough on Paw-in-Law.
 The ease developed that the wife fulfilled the threat of going back to eher people" and left the husband flat. The result was that father-in- law was Involved in a very expensive la4r suit and in the end had to deliver up his Laughter to her rightful pro- There IS an illusion abroad that the En4lizhman-- English not British -ha8 right to beat his wife with a stiek not thicker than his thumb. That uas sixty years ago, and though the a<<:* has never been repealed, there are certain judgments in existence which have considerably modified the power of husband over his wife.
 There was time not long ago when . husband became the absolute owner 6f hIs wife's property on her mar xfⅇ she herself, too, became his property; if she ran away he might pursue her, capture her by stratagem sz otherwise and take her to his house md lock her up She had no remedy. EeRaIlv the husband "hath power md dominion over his wife and may ke6p her by force within the bounds of duty, and also he may beat her, but not iu violent or cruel manner"
 Tint is the outlet now through which wife may sue her husband for azaauIt should he strike her. There fore should the modern husband exer- ciSc h|s pre-1860 rights and thrash his Wife fur some misdemeanor he is liable 10 be sp1a by the said spouse for as- 16uIt md if he repeats the offense it becoI1es persistent cruelty, for which Bhe ]s untitled to a separation with
 Property Rights.
 Hawever, the letter of the law still 4sss .;i England Legally the wife's po1ition has only been improved in re- x1fd <1 her property, but the interpre- tx<ion A6d spirit of it has undergone con@l11<able alteration.
 I44 beating .once regarded as per- mi11[tI< is now reduced to "browbeat- iu@ md mild remonstrance. Even tt& I&4<er is now dangerous, because II | H46bands verbal abuse is proved fo b4x& had an injurious effect upon the Wife's health it may amount to cruelty and become a matter for the divorce court.
 IIsE Iast time on record that hus- band Attempted to assert his powers was ln 1891. He quoted what is known as the famous Cochrane case. In tue Cochrane case, the wife, in order to escape from what she alleged <e 66 t1e sfitful fever" of an unhappy married life, flsl to her mother.
 S16 femaine& absent four years. i Uar1H& that time she had among Q{ler things "attsnded masked balls u k4rl< with persons whom her hus- baud did not know"
 by1rder of the court the wife was Ioxeea fo return to her husband and I57< with him. It was then estab- HzaeQ the husband had complete do- m1l1lQn over her and the High Court j4d&e held that:
 Husband and wife were one in 4x the law allows but one will be-
 4u them, which must be placed
 eIe husband as the fittest and
 5t to govern the family.
 ze case of 1891 the husband
 <11is case. The facts were that
 band bodily seized his wife as
 leaving church in company
 x sister and carried her away
 <4b, took her home and placed
 Ter lock and key.
 Has brought thence by writ
 LIS corpus. Later the House
 1s overruled the Cochrane deci-
 d the freedom of wives in Eng
 21Ean at that date. Even then,
 4E it was carefully pointed out
 4 some cases physical restraint
 husband might be justified
 1mple, if he met her on the
 the very act of elopement. E E 4lrect and indirect effects of the zIE1 Women's Property Act and
 tFeTsal of the Cochrane case
 Tn deciding factors to free wo-
 Qm matrimonial bondage which
 zen their lot since medieval