ssion
by a wife of articles specially fitted for and adapted to her
personal use, and differing in that respect from household goods
kept for the common use of husband and wife, would draw after it
a presumption of the executed gift if the property came from the
husband, and of the wife's ownership, but for disabilities of the
marital relations. Now that these disabilities are removed the
separate existence and separate property of the wife are
recognized, and her capacity to take and hold as her own the gift
in good faith and fairly made to her by her husband established,
it seemed to the court time to clothe her right with natural and
proper attributes, and apply to the gift to her, although made by
her husband, the general rules of law unmodified and unimpaired
by the old disabilities of the marriage relations.

This decision was important as further destroying the old
common-law theory of the husband's absolute ownership of his wife's
person, property, services and earnings. The same year (1882) the
Supreme Court, at its general term, rendered a decision that a
married woman could sue her husband for damages for assault and
battery; that by the act of 1860 the legislature intended to, and
did, change the common-law rule, that a wife could not sue her
husband. Judge Brady rendered the opinion, Judge Daniels
concurring; Presiding Judge Noah Davis dissenting. Judge Brady
said:

To allow the right (to sue) in an action of this character, in
accordance with the language of the statute, would be to promote
greater harmony by enlarging the rights of married women and
increasing the obligations of husbands, by affording greater
protection to the former, and by enforcing greater restraint upon
the latter in the indulgence of their evil passions. The
declaration of such a rule is not against the policy of the law.
It is in harmony with it, and calculated to preserve peace and,
in a great measure, prevent barbarous acts, acts of cruelty,
regarded by mankind as inexcusable, contemptible, detestable. It
is neither too early nor too late to promulgate the doctrine that
if a husband commits an assault and battery upon his wife he may
be held responsible civilly and criminally for the act, which is
not only committed in violation of the laws of God and man, but
in direct antagonism to the co