THE SPOILT CHILD OF THE LAW.
[To THE EDITOR OP THE " Srvcreiros."1 SIR; I read with considerable interest the article appearing under• the above heading in last week's Spectator, and, as one having a sometime association with the law, can endorse to the full what your contributor there says.
A married woman can certainly play " fast and loose " in a manner that is not permitted to any other person amenable to the English law. Even to obtain a judgment against her you must proceed with the utmost wariness, for there are not a few pitfalls to be avoided; but it is only when this has been done that the real trouble begins, for the law not infrequently says in effect : "Thus far and no further shalt thou go." For if the defendant has separate estate it is likely enough you will find it, to use the words of one writer upon the subject, "incased in that execution- proof armour, the restraint on anticipation, which in the case of a man is ruthlessly condemned as against public policy, but which
in the case of a woman is permitted Under the impervious shelter of this doctrine she can clothe herself in purple and fine linen and fare sumptuously every day,' however dire may be the straits of poverty into which her conduct may drive her wretched creditors, for the law in its jealous regard for its darling not only refuses to impound the capital, but even denies you the consola- tion of receiving the income." (" Hood Bars v. Cathcart," 70, L.T., 862.) It is, however, unnecessary for me to elaborate on this aspect of the subject, your contributor having dealt with it with a lucidity which leaves nothing to be desired. I would rather supplement what ho has said thereon by other instances of a married woman's immunity from the arm of the law, which, probably owing to exigencies of space, he was unable to touch upon.
In virtue of the peculiar wording of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (section 17 or 18, I believe ; I have no means of verifying which at the moment of writing), any damages or costs recovered against her (a married woman) in any (legal) proceedings shall be payable out of her separate property and not otherwise. The result involved by the italicised words is that should the defendant be without separate estate the creditor's remedy (at best of doubtful value) is gone, the judgment being a proprietary one only,—i.e., available only as against her property (if any) and not against her person. From this it follows that that salutary method of bringing recalcitrant debtors to book, when other means fail—i.e., the commitment summons—is not available against a married woman (" Scott v. Morley").
But our "spoilt child" enjoys yet other immunities from legal consequences, and the ono I am now about to refer to she enjoys at the expense of her husband, for he, poor unfortunate creature, is liable to be mulcted in damages to his last penny for any slander or libel she may have disseminated concerning her neighbour. He is the legal whipping-boy for all the consequences which may arise from the exercise of his "better" half's unbridled tongue,— a prospect surely enough to appal the most insouciant of spouses. This was decided in the case of " Seroka v. Kattenburg" (17, Q.B.D., 177), which, not having been reversed, is still good law. Again, a man may be wrongfully accused of the most flagrant immorality, and, however injurious to him such accusa- tions may be, the law is quite indifferent to his reputation, and he finds, poor disabused mortal, that his case is one which lawyers call damnum absque injuria, unless he can establish the fact that he has suffered special damage,—i.e., that the imputations have injuriously affected him in the way of his business or pro- fession.
On the other hand, acting, very onesidedly it must be admitted, on the Shakespearean maxim that "the purest treasure mortal times afford is spotless reputation," the law has in its tender solicitude for all womankind made special provision for feminine good name, the Slander of Women Act, 1891, enacting that words spoken and published which impute unchastity or adultery to any woman or girl shall not require special damage to render them actionable. Then as regards liability to Income-tax, a married woman's property, except in the case of personal earnings, and where at the same time the joint income of the husband and wife does not exceed £500, is aggregated with that of her husband, with the result that he has the "privilege" of paying Income-tax on another's income.
I commend these facts to the consideration of those who may
be disposed to lend a not unwilling ear to the present-day clamour for woman's "emancipation" (like that blessed word "Mesopo- tamia"), and it would be interesting also to know what the suffra- gettes have to say thereon. In my judgment, this agitation for "women's rights" is largely a manufactured one, engineered for all it is worth by a few women who would be better employed in looking after the rising generation and in using their undoubted influence and power to secure, as far as they can, that the coming race is a manly and virile one, and producing citizens each of whom will be able to say, as of old, Civis Romanus sum. But if women are determined to have their rights, so be it. They must at the same time recognise that rights and privileges bring corre- lative obligations and responsibilities. Then they may learn that whilst "speech was silvern, silence would have been golden," and that by their foolish agitation they have landed themselves " out of the frying-pan into the fire."
District Council Offices, 59 High Street, Long Eaton.
Previous page
