A MATRIMONIAL TERROR LIABILITIES OF HUSBANDS.

Dunstan Times, Issue 793, 29 June 1877, Page 4

A MATRIMONIAL TERROR LIABILITIES OF HUSBANDS.

■*— o — George Jessel, on February 9, g; ve an interlocutory decision in a case which •raises some very-important points with regard to the liabilities of those unfortunate persons who happen ! to be the'husbands of’married women. It seen s that a'cortain married lady is, among'hor separate'property, possessed of a'racehorse, Upon which she has giveu'sevoral mortgages. The horse is entered for'varirtUs races ; the mortgagees are pressing for payment; the trainer claims a lien for liis expenses'; and.by way of settling all these conflicting claims, it has been suggested that the hrtrsc should be sold, and the proceeds of the sale reputably divided among the claimants Sir George Jessel; after observing thatit was rather an extension of tho modern doctrine of female rights for a lady to own racehorses and run them in her own name, went on to declare his conviction that the evidence in the case was so con dieting that ho should m ike no order one way or the other. Upon this a learned counsel, who appeared for the lady’s husband, rose up to complain that his client had been made a party to tho suit against his expressed wish ; that he knew nothing of his wife’s racehorse, and cared less; and that he begged that the application as against 'himself might he dismissed with costs. The Master of the rolls replied, for the strict point of view in equity, that the unhappy gentleman was a necessary party ; that he was responsible for his wife’s acts, and that if the lady sold the home, or otherwise parted with it, he would be liable constructively for her contempt of Court and would have to go to prison accordingly. The learned counsel protested, with some eloquence and at some length, against what he designated as “ this new peril of matrimony,” but was summarily interrupted by the learned judge, who 'told him that if a man chose to marry a lady who owns racehorses he must take the ■consequence. This may or •may not be the strictly legal view of the case. But-it cannot be questioned that a new terror has been added to matrimony ; and it will, perhaps, in future, be as well that a clansejshould he in every marriage settlement, by which the trustees indemnify the husband against any liabilities which his wife may have contracted-on the turf while still a spinster.