The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1921-11-18
POWER OF HUSBAND OVER
 WIFE IN ENGLAND BRINGS
 UP MANY NOVEL DISPUTES
to Strict Letter of Law Hubbys Rights Are Almost Turklil<e, But Most Of Ancient Matrimonial Laws Have Been Greatly Modi- fled

London, Nov. 1S-Of the many laws the British statute books none is so ambiguous or misleading as that relating to the power of a husband over his wife.
 Under the strict letter of the law a British husband can exercise over his wife an almost Turk-like dominion. Yet in accordance with the Married Womens Property Act should hus- band live in the house and home which is her property. he may only do so providing he behaves himself.
 Should he entertain any of his friends there without first obtaining his wife's permission it is tantamount to misbehaVior and he can be elected.
 Most of the ancient matrim onial rights have disappeared. A case. how ever, cropped up in the Law Courts the other day in which an action was brought by husband against his wife's father for ''harboring'' her, a revival of an ancient matrimonial right which has almost disappeared.
 Tough on Paw-in-Law
 The case developed that the wife "het people" and left the husband flat. The result was that father-in- law was involved in a very expensive lawsuit and in the end had to deliver up his daughter to her rightful pro- tector.
 There is an illusion abroad that the Engli&hman-note English not British has a right to beat his wife with q stick not thicker than his thumb. That was so sixty years ago, and though the act has never been repealed, there are certain judgments in existence which have considerably modified the power of a husband over his wife.
 There was a time not long ago when a husband became the absolute own CT of his wife's property on her mar riage; she herself, too, became his property; if she ran away he might pursue her, capture her by strateger~ CT otherwise and take her to his house
 .J-r
 Legally the husband hath power and dominion over his wife and may keep her by force within the bounds of duty, and also he may beat her, but not in violent and cruel manner.''
 That Is the outlet now through which a wife may sue her husband for assault should he strike her. Therefore should the modern hus- thrash his wife for some nnisdemean- or he is liable to be sued by the said spouse for assault, and if he repeats the offense it becomes persistent separation with alimony.
 Property Rights
 However the letter of the law still exists in England. Legally the wife's position has only been improved in regard to her property. but the inter gone considerable alteration.
 The beating once regarded as per missible is now reduced to 'browib eat ing'' and mild rem onstrance. Even the latter is now dangerous, because if a husbands verbal abuse is proved to have had an injurious effect up- on the wife's health it may amount to cruelty and become a matter for the divorce court. The last time on records that a husband attempted to assert his pow CTS was in 1891. He quoted what is knokn as the famous Cochrane case. In the Cochrane case, the wife, in or der to escape from what she alleged to be the 'fitful fever' of an unhappy married life, fled to her mother.