HYACI

before the marriage, and which the husband has notappropriated to himself. But, as all the earnings ofthe wife, during the marriage, belong exclusively tothe husband, whether gained by her labour, by trade,or in any other way, he alone can sue for any claimthence arising; and, in case of his decease, his exe-cutors succeed to his right, and not the wife in herindividual capacity.

The law, at tfie same time, shows a scrupulousrespect for a union so intimate, and permits theparties mutually to defend each other against theattacks of other persons; and also exempts them,except in a few extreme cases, from being witnessesagainst each other, upon the same principle on whichit exempts a party from being a witness against him-self ; and even farther, for it will not permit eitherto be a witness against the other. It is a generalrule, that this contract of marriage so completelyabsorbs all others, that the parties cannot afterwardscontract with each other, since, in the view of thelaw, it would be equivalent to a contract of a partywith himself. In the time of lord Mansfield, somedecisions were made by the court of king’s bench,tending to the introduction of an exception to thisdoctrine, in case of an agreement between hus-band and wife to live separately, upon formal articlesmade by them, providing for a separate maintenanceof the wife. But the same court retraced its steps inthe time of the succeeding chief justice, lord Kenyon,and re-established the old doctrine, that all suchagreements were absolutely void. The only way,accordingly, of protecting and maintaining the pecu-niary contracts of the wife, and preventing themfrom being merged by the marriage, is throughthe intervention of trustees. The law doe3 notprevent the putting property into the hands of trus-tees, to be managed either according to the discretionof the trustees, or under the direction of the wife, forher separate benefit, as if she were a single woman;and this may be done either before or after the mar-riage, provided that the interest of creditors, havingsubsisting claims at the time, shall not be affected.So that, after all, this civil identity of the husbandand wife, as to the possession, use, control, and appli-cation of the wife’s property, or its income, is merelynominal, since the law permits her to do in thename of another what it does not permit in her own.And, where there are courts established with sufficientpowers to give suitable remedies in regard to suchcontracts (as there ought, undoubtedly, to be everywhere), any provisions and conditions may be agreedupon between the parties, as to any property alreadyexisting. Such contracts are, however, collateral tothat ol marriage; for the law will by no means allowof any conditions or modifications to the contractitself.

In countries where the civil institutions are bor-rowed from the Roman law, as has already been said,the conjugal bond, of its own force, and according tothe general laws, independently of any express stipu-lations of the parties between themselves, or of theintervention of any third parties, gives rise to avery different set of relations and rights. To takethe French code for an example, without goinginto an inquiry how far the laws of other countries,derived from the same source, coincide with thatcode in minor details and provisions, there arewo descriptions of marriage contract, as far asbo property of the parties is concerned, both of

N THUS. 47;)

which, however, contemplate the rights of pro-perty of the parties as distinct. By one form of themarriage contract, the husband and wife becomepartners, by the other, their rights of property con-tinue distinct, notwithstanding the marriage. In casoof no stipulation, a community of goods will, by theoperation of law, result from the marriage ; so that aspecial agreement is requisite, in order to maintain aseparate property in each party; and this is calleda dotal marriage, or one in which the wife’s dot, orportion, is regarded as a distinct property. If themarriage is inteiided to be a dotal one, it must be soexpressed in a formal instrument drawn up before anotary-public; and thus the same object is effected,which, under the jurisdiction of the common law ofEngland, can be secured only by the interposition ofa third party, and a set of minute and elaborate pro-visions creating a trust. The French code does not,however, any more than the English common law,permit any conditions or modifications to be intro-duced into the marriage contract itself, which makesthe personal rights of the parties the same throughoutthe kingdom; and, in respect to the rights to pro-perty, and its possession and use, it does not, like theEnglish common law, affect at all to consider theparties as identified.

This community of goods extends to all the move-able property of the parties, possessed at the time ofthe marriage, and to all that is acquired by themduring the continuance of the conjugal relation, as wellwhat accrues from their industry', and the use of theirproperty, as that which comes by descent or dona-tian, unless the donation is upon other conditionsprescribed on the part of the donor ; but, on thedissolution of the partnership, or community of goodsand interest, whether by the death of one of theparties, or otherwise, a division is made between them,or between the survivor and the heirs of the deceasedpartner, as in the case of an ordinary partnership ;but, if tlie marriage is dotal, the wife’s portion, or itsvalue, will continue to be her separate property ; butstill, unless it be otherwise agreed, the managementand income of it will belong to the husband, whois not obliged to give any sureties for his propermanagement of the trust, unless it shall be so stipu-lated by the parties. If this separate property consistsof lands, neither the husband alone, nor both partiesconcurring, can dispose of it during the marriage.In general, this separate property', or its value, musteventually, on the dissolution of the marriage, likethe wife’s share in the partnership funds in the easeof community of property, go to the wife, or herrepresentatives. There are, however, certain casesin which a part or the whole of the capital, of w hichthe portion consists, may be alienated during themarriage ; as, for instance, to obtain the release ofthe husband from prison, to supply the means ofsupport to the family, and in a few other specifiedcases ; but in general, it is to remain the separateproperty of the wife, and, as such, whether it consistsof personal or real estate, descends to her heirs.

Hyacinthus. A son of Amyclas and Diomede,who was greatly beloved by Apollo and Zephyrus.He returned the former’s love, and Zephyrus, in-censed at his coldness and indifference, resolved topunish his rival. As Apollo, who was intrusted withthe education of Hyacinthus, was playing at quoitsI with his pupil, Zephyrus blew the quoit, as soon itwas thrown by Apollo, upon the head of Hyacinthus,