A NEW TERROR ADDED TO MATRIMONY.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 117, 19 May 1877, Page 4

A NEW TERROR ADDED TO MATRIMONY.

Sir George Jessel gave an interlocutory decision on February 9, in a ease which raises some every important points with regard to the liabilities of those unfortunate persons who happen to be the husbands of married women. It seems that a certain married lady is, among her separate property, possessed of a racehorse, upon which she hue given several mortgages. The horse is entered for various races; the mortgagees are pressing for payment; the trainer claims a lien for his expenses; and by way of settling all these conflicting claims, it has been suggested that the horse should be sold, and the proceedings of the sale equitably divided among the claimants. Sir George Jessel, after observing that it was rather an extension of the modern doctrine of female rights for a lady to own racehorses and run them in her own name, went on to declare his conviction thut the evidence in the case was so couflicting that be should make 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 the suit against his express wish; that he knew nothing about his wife's race horses, aud cared less; and that ha begged that the application as a^aiust himself might be dismissed wifh costs. Tbe Master of tlie Rolls replied, iroin tlie Biritu point of view of equity, that tbe uoliuppy gentleman was a necessary party; that he was responisbie lor Dia wife's acis, and that if the lady sold the horse or otherwise parted with it, he would bt> liable coastructively for her contempt ot conn, and would have to go to prison accordingly. The learned counsel protested, with some eiuqusuce, and at some length, against wbat ht> dcbiguated as " this new peril of matrimony,'' but was summarily iuterupted liy tbe learned Ju^e, who tola til in that it a man cbousas to marry a lady who owns racehotaes he must take ih« consequences. This may or iuay not be tho strictly legal view of

I the case (says tha London Observer), I but it cannot be questioned that a new terror has been added to matrimony, and it will perhaps ia future be as well that a clause should be inserted in every marriage settlement by which the trustees indemnify the husband against any liabilities which his wife may have ooncotracted on the turf while still a spinster.