Fulgham v. State
46 Ala. 143 (1871)
Rule of Law:
A husband in Alabama is not legally justified in physically chastising his wife, as the common law 'privilege' of moderate correction is not recognized and all citizens, including wives, are entitled to equal protection under the law.
Facts:
- The husband was criminally prosecuted by indictment on a charge of assault and battery upon his wife.
- The husband claimed as his defense that he had a common law right to give his wife moderate correction in order to secure her obedience to his just commands.
Procedural Posture:
- The husband (accused) was charged with assault and battery upon his wife via indictment in a lower court (trial court).
- In the lower court, a judgment was rendered against the husband, with the court giving a specific instruction (charge) to the jury and refusing a charge requested by the defense.
- The husband then appealed this judgment to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a husband have a legal right under common law to physically chastise his wife to secure her obedience, as recognized and enforceable in the State of Alabama?
Opinions:
Majority - Peters, J.
No, a husband does not have a legal right to physically chastise his wife in Alabama. The court rejected the defense that a common law privilege allows a husband to administer moderate correction to his wife. Justice Peters reasoned that the historical common law 'privilege' of wife-whipping, even in Blackstone's time, was confined to the 'lower rank of the people' and was not an universal law. The court held that such partial laws cannot be enforced in Alabama, as the law must apply equally to all ranks of people without regard to station or sex. Citing the advancement of learning, morals, and religion, the court declared that the ancient custom is a 'low and barbarous custom' and not a law, emphasizing that a wife is not her husband's slave and is entitled to the same protection of the law as the husband. The opinion further underscored that the Alabama Constitution extends the protective power of the State to all its people alike, ensuring equal civil and political rights and privileges, thereby prohibiting special privileges based on rank, caste, or sex. The court concluded that while gentle restraint is permitted, and both spouses may seek peace orders or be indicted for assault against each other, 'the rule of love has superseded the rule of force.'
Dissenting - Peck, C. J.
Justice Peck dissented without providing a written explanation of his reasoning in the provided text.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision that unequivocally rejected a long-standing, if often unenforced, common law tradition of a husband's right to physically chastise his wife. It signaled a significant shift in the legal understanding of marital relations, moving towards greater equality and protection for women under the law. The court's emphasis on constitutional principles of equal protection foreshadowed future developments in family law and civil rights, solidifying the idea that marriage does not diminish an individual's fundamental rights. It serves as a powerful precedent for denying marital immunity in cases of domestic violence.
