LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF WOMEN.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2687, 27 September 1871, Page 3

LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF WOMEN.

In his charge to the Grand Jury of Hokitika, Judge Richmond made the following remarks The law in respect to the responsibility of women is somewhat singular. The common law has been charged with undue preference to the male sex. Doubtless there are many respects in which the common law may be said to be obsolete. In respect to women, for instance, independent rights have been conferred by statute which has rendered the common law obso’etc-with regard to them. But the criminal law, on the other hand, would appear to be unduly favorable to women, as freeing them from responsibilities to which, in the present state of society, they are clearly liable. The law regards the woman as dependent on the husband, whereas experience Shows that, in the commission of crime, she is really independent. There are instances, certainly, wherein the wife may fairly claim exemption—where she harbors her husband, being a criminal, even though of the blackest dye ; or where she is a receiver of goods stolen by her husband, she living in the same house. There are other cases, however, where this immvmlty is utterly repugnant to our sense of justice. A case has recently occiirred at home, where public feeling was shocked at the immunity conferred by the law on a married woman. I refer to the jewelry case, in which an acquittal was directed because the robbery was committed in the presence of her husband, and she was deemed to be under his control. It must, however, be borne in mind that where a woman joins in the commission of a crime with her husband, she is only prima facie under his control, and the case is open to rebutting evidence to prove that she was acting independently. On this point 1 will read to you from a note by Mr Greeves, the late editor of ‘ Russell on Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ He says ; . Upon the trial of husband and wife, the prbnct facie presumption is that she acted under liis coercion, provided he were actually present at the time the felony was committed. If, therefore, nothing appears but that the felony was committed while they were both together, the jury ought to be di, reoted to acquit the wife. Ibis presumption is prhm facte only, and may be rebutted, either by showing that the wife was the instigator, or more active party^or that the husband, though present, was incapable of coercing, as that he was a cripple and bed-ridden, or, that the wjfe was the stronger of the two.’ In order to rebut the prima facie case set: up by his wife, it is not necessary to show that she was the instigator. It is sufficient if it be shown that she was independently taking an active part in the criminal act, as, for instance, in the case of assault which will come before you, that some of the blows were inflicted by her, and that there is nothing to show that her husband was driving her on to it. I cannot but feel that the law on the subject requires revision, in order to its adaptation to the piesent state of society.