A Seattle Wife Sued Her Husband for Beating Her. The Court Said She Couldn't.

The suit of Mrs. Hoganson against her husband for damages for injuries was called for trial yesterday. Mrs. Hoganson alleged that on May 22, 1896, her husband struck her in the right eye with his fist, and when she fell to the floor kicked her on the head, back and breast with his heavy boots. She said that as a result of the assault her sight had been permanently impaired, and that she had suffered great pain of body and mind. Mr. Hoganson, in his answer, set up the fact that on the day the alleged assault was committed his wife was in a violent mood. He entered the room where dinner was being prepared and sat down to eat. He inquired of his daughter why some fish had not been cooked for dinner, whereupon Mrs. Hoganson turned upon him and exclaimed: 'Shut up and get out of this house; everything in here belongs to me.' Then she called him hard names and hurled a plate of hot fish at him and attempted to assault him with the dish. The husband said that to protect himself he then committed the assault, fearing that his wife, who had threatened his life, would do him terrible bodily injury. When the case was called for trial yesterday the plaintiff offered her testimony, but the defense objected on the ground that the wife could not maintain an action against her husband. The plaintiff's counsel cited the case of Schultz v. Schultz, decided by the supreme court in New York, to show that such an action could be maintained, but the defendant's counsel cited a decision of the court of appeals of New York state in which the supreme court's decision in the Schultz case was reversed. Judge Osborne, in sustaining the position taken by the defendant's counsel, said: 'A wife at common law could not maintain any action in her own name. A wife has only such rights of action as have been given her by the statutes. Our code, it is true, relieves the wife from many—in fact most all—of the common-law disabilities, but our supreme court has construed the community laws and those statutes giving the wife the right of action, and it has been held that for rights of action for damages to the wife the husband is the necessary party. The husband can sue for injuries to the wife, and he has the control and management of all community property. A right of action in favor of husband or wife is a chosen action and is community property. The husband could not bring an action in favor of himself and wife and against himself, hence this action is not maintained.' The plaintiff's counsel excepted to the ruling and the case will now go to the supreme court.