[ 37 ]
I acknowledge they are Tricks [1] and Cheats, and no Part of the Law itſelf; yet they are practicable in Conſequence of the Law, which gives the ſole Property of the Wife's Fortune to the Huſband, by which he is enabled to pay the Debts contracted to purchaſe her, our of her own Eſtate. 'Tis true, a Woman may impoſe upon a Man, by telling him ſhe has a Fortune when ſhe has none, and (if the Man is weak enough) by Artifice engage him to marry her upon that Suppoſition. But ſhe can't borrow a Sum of Money, and at her Marriage put her Huſband in Poſſeſſion of it as her Fortune, and afterwards ſecretly repay it, out of his Subſtance without his Knowledge: And if the Huſband ſhould be called upon to repay the Money, he would require to know the Conſideration upon which it was lent, by which Means it might appear that the Creditor had combined with his Wife to impoſe upon him, and cheat him; and in that Caſe the Law would relieve him.
I ſhall produce an Inſtance of Fraud, by Way of Illuſtration.
A Farmer's Son courted a young Woman with whom he was extreamly in Love;
- ↑ Does the Law make any Proviſion againſt theſe Tricks and Cheats? If it does not, is not the Law ſo far defective?
