Shocking US state law allowed husband to kill someone caught having sex with his wife under one condition

All is fair when it comes to love and war, or so they say.

And in the state of Texas, they apparently used to take this expression very seriously.

Up until 1973, it was once allowed for a man to kill his wife's lover - until it was overruled by Senate Bill 34.

However, you couldn't just shoot willy-nilly as the law was only applicable under one condition.

Until 1973, it was legal in Texas for a man to shoot his wife's lover (Getty stock image)

According to Article 1220 of the Texas penal code, homicide was 'justifiable' when committed by the husband 'upon one taken in the act of adultery with the wife, provided that the killing takes place before the parties to the act have separated'.

"Such circumstance cannot justify a homicide where it appears that there has been, on the part of the husband, any connivance or assent to the adulterous connection." it adds.

And over on Reddit, there was a lot of discussion around the meaning of 'separated'.

Did this mean the cheating couple literally had to be mid-adultery for the shooting to be legal?

Not quite.

It wouldn't happen like this (Getty stock image)

An article published in the SMU Law Review in 1959 looked into the matter.

According to the article, the law represented 'a departure from the common-law rule' and it didn't mean that a husband had to physically catch his spouse in the act either - so scratch that thought.

It then cites a phrase 'taken in the act of adultery', which implied that simple knowledge of the affair 'wasn't necessary', but rather 'that the surrounding circumstances would indicate to a rational mind that the adulterous act has just then been committed, or was about to be committed' - with it only being justifiable in the eyes of the law based on 'the reasonableness of the appearance'.

If that wasn't the case, then the husband would be tried for murder.

The law had a serious of conditions (Getty stock image)

And for the 'separated' part, that was in reference to the married couple 'still being in each other's company' and not that they were physically caught in the act.

But what if the lover killed the husband?

Well, he would be charged with murder without malice because 'he was committing a misdemeanor which was the cause of and brought about the necessity for the homicide'.

However, this justification didn't extend to the cheating wife, as her husband wasn't allowed to kill or injure her.

If a woman caught her husband in a similar position, however, she was not allowed to kill her husband's mistress or her husband.

Bit of a double standard if you ask me.