Untitled

Evening Star, Issue 3501, 13 May 1874, Page 2

A -very peculiar case was decided in the Melbourne Otfunty Court the other day. A Mr and Mrs Raphael, of Fitzrny, were sued by a Mr and Mrs Hibling, for slander. It appeared that Miss Raphael, a daughter of the defendants, had a photograph taken at plaintiffs’ rooms, and as the photograph did not suit, a second sitting took pla:e, for which Miss Raphael paid 2a 6d. Mrs Raphael then went to the premises of Mr Hibling, and while some customers were in the room she charged Mrs Hibling with having robbed her daughter and taken money out of her purse. She also threw some doubts on the question whether Mrs Hibling really was a married woman. Several customers who were in the rooms left in consequence of the conduct of Mrs Raphael, and did not return, and it was said she told them to have nothing to do with the Hiblings, as they were- robbers. Hence the action. It was contended that the defendant could not become liable for the actions of his wife, and Mrs Raphael, as a married woman, could not bo sued unless she had separate property of her own, which had not been shown in this case. The contention, in fact, amounted to the assumption that since the Married Women’s Property Statute was passed, ,a woman was free to do what she chose, short |of a crime, and could not,

be made responsible. Judge Cope, after hearing arguments, held with the points submitted, and nonsuited the plaintiffs. Truly, as the ‘Australasian’ remarks, “ this is a highly comfortable decision, so far as married people are concerned. If married life has its cares, it has some peculiar advantages : it brings responsibilities, no doubt, but it also enables the husband to relieve himself of some in a very convenient manner. Most men have felt a very strong de ire to give somebody a ‘ bit of their mind at some time or other, but have been restrained from doing so by a prudential forecast of the consequences ’ Ilibling and Wife v. Bajihael and Wife shows how prudence is to reconciled with the utmost freedom and plain speaking, if proper measures be taken, it is only necessary for a man to convey bis views and feelings to his wife, and delegate to her the duty of expressing th( in in the strongest form to the persons to whom they refer. Therefore, so far as married people are concerned, the decision is a most satisfactory one. It is hardly necessary to inquire how it may he regarded by others, and especially by those who may suffer by it. Their only remedy seems to be to get married also, and in their choice of a wife to make the capability of speaking her mind, or rather their mind, pretty freely, when circumstances may require it an essential condition in making their selection.”