ourts in 1612, quoted in 7 Mod. Rep., 264).

"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law"; that is,
the legal existence of the woman is "merged in that of her
husband." He is her "baron," or "lord," bound to supply her with
shelter, food, clothing and medicine, and is entitled to her
earnings--the use and custody of her person, which he may seize
wherever he may find it (Blackstone, I., 442, 443; Coke Litt., 112
a, 187 b; 8 Dowl., P. C., 632.)

The husband being bound to provide for his wife the necessaries of
life, and being responsible for "her morals" and the good order of
the household, may choose and govern the domicil, choose her
associates, separate her from her relatives, restrain her religious
and personal freedom, compel her to cohabit with him, correct her
faults by mild means and, if necessary, chastise her with
moderation, as though she was his apprentice or child. This is in
"respect to the terms of the marriage contract and the infirmity of
the sex" (Bl., I., 444; 1 Bishop on Mar. and Div., 758; 8 Dowl. P.
C., 632; Bouv. Insts., 277, 278, 2,283; 1 Wend. Bl., 442, note; 4
Petersdorf's A. B., 21, note).

Woman's character, exposed to the vilest slanders of "malignity and
falsehood," and her chastity are protected on account of the injury
sustained by the father, husband or master from loss of her
services, or wrongful entry of his house, rather than the injury
done to her as an individual (Bl. I., 445, note; III., 141, 143,
note; 3 Serg. and Rawle, Penn., 36; 3 Penn., 49; 2 Watts' Penn.,
474).

The husband is entitled to recover damages for "criminal
conversation with his wife," or for injury to her person whereby he
is deprived of his "marital rights," or of her "company and
assistance"; also an action of _trespass vi et armis_ against the
individual enticing her away or encouraging her to live separately
from him; the offense implies force and constraint, "the wife
having no power to consent," and is punishable with fine and
imprisonment (Bl., III., 139; 2 Inst., 434; Bouvier's Institutes,
3,495).

The wife has no action for injuries to her husband as she is not
entitled to his services, neither has she any separate interest in
anything during her coverture. The law takes notice only of the
injuries done to the "superior of the parties related"; because
"the inferior has no kind of property in the company, care or
assistance of the superior, as the superior is held to have in
those o