Copyright
J. G. (Jabez Gridley) Sutherland.

A treatise on the law of damages : embracing an elementary exposition of the law, and also its application to particular subjects of contract and tort (Volume 5) online

. (page 15 of 192)
Online LibraryJ. G. (Jabez Gridley) SutherlandA treatise on the law of damages : embracing an elementary exposition of the law, and also its application to particular subjects of contract and tort (Volume 5) → online text (page 15 of 192)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


343; Dain v. \Avckort, 18 id. 45, 72 ° *^

229.

Am. Dec. 4!.3; Fernsler v. ik)yer, 3 sa Anthony v. Norton, 60 Kan.

W. & S. 410, 39 Am. Dec. 33: Coon g^j ^^ l.R.A. 757, 72 Am. St. 360.

V. iloffett, 3 X. J. L. 436; Manwell S3 Hood v. Sudderth, 111 N. C.

V. Thomson, 2 C. & P. 303; Edmun- 215.



4964 SUTHERLAND ON DAMAGES. [§ 1283

§ 1283. Evidence for plaintiff, and damages recoverable.

The rule as to damages is the same whether the daughter be
a minor or of full age; the plaintiif is not limited in his
recovery to such as are merely compensatory. He may recover
exemplary damages when he is so connected with her as to be
capable of receiving injury through her dishonor,^* regardless
of whether malice existed ; the act of seduction is necessarily
wilful.^^ The wealth of the defendant is a proper subject of
inquiry in respect to exemplary damages.^^ In estimating the
injury the jury may take into consideration, besides the loss
of services and the disbursements for medical treatment and
other necessary expenses, the wounded feelings and affec-
tions of the parent, the wrong done to him in his domestic and
social relations, the stain and dishonor brought upon his fam-
ily, and the grief and affliction suffered in consequence of it,
and give damages accordingly.^' If the action is brought by
any other than a person standing in the relation of parent it
will be governed by the same principles and rules of evidence;
and the court and jury will make the proper discrimination as

34 Luther v. Shaw, 157 Wis. 234, v. McGinnis, 22 W. Va. 253; Bar-

52 L.R.A.(]Sr.S.) 85, citing the hour v. Stephenson, 32 Fed. 66;

text; Russell v. Chambers, 31 Minn. Herring v. Jester, 2 Houst. 66; Tay-

54; Lawyer v. Fritclier, 130 N. lor v. Shelkett, 66 Ind. 297; Fox v.

Y. 239, 27 Am. St. 521, 14 L.R.A. Stevens, 13 Minn. 272; Paterson v.

700; Lipe v. Eisenlerd, 32 N. Y. Wilc(!>x, 20 Up. Can. C. P. 3S5; Wil-

229; Wilson v. Sproul, 3 P. & W. son v. Sproul, Hornketh v. Barr,

49; Hornketh v. Barr, 8 S. & R. supra; Coon v. Moffett, 3 X. J. L,

36, 11 Am. Dec. 568; Kerns v. 436; Pruitt v. Cox, 21 Ind. 15; Phil-

Hagenbuchle, 60 N. Y. Super. 228: jjpg y. Hoyle, 4 Gray 568; Hatch v.

Ingwaldson v. Skrivseth, 7 N. D. y^jj^^^ ^gj ^ass. 574; Felkner v.

388, 393; Scarlett v. Norwood, 115 g^^^j^^ gO Ind. 154; White v. Murt-

N. C. 284; Willeford v. Bailey, 132 , , „. -.n o-r, oo a -d Tnt^
' ■" land, 71 111. 2o0, 22 Am. Rep. 100;

OCT J," o, •,-.. TTT- r.«. Kendrick v. McCrary, 11 Ga. 603;

35 Luther v. Shaw, 157 Wis. 234, _, „ , „„ ,^ ' ,„„ ^

52 L.R.A.(KS.) 85, citing the text; ^^^-« ^- ^^'^'^' ^^7 Mass. 198; Gar-
Anderson V. Aupperle, 51 Ore. 556; ^"^^^^^ ^- ^^^''"^' ^^ 111. App. 255;
Stowers v. Singer, 24 Ky. L. Rep. ^^^^^^ ^- ^^^^^' ^^ Colo. 504, 24
395 L.R.A. 387; Mighell v. Stone, 175

36 Willeford V. Bailey, swpm; Lu- I"- 261; Middleton v. Nichols, 62
ther V. Shaw, 157 Wis. 234, 52 N. J. L. 636, 640; Milliken v. Long,
L.R.A.(N.S.) 85. 188 Pa. 411; Cook v. Bartlett, 179

37 Russell V. Chambers, supra; Mass. 576; Palmer v. Baum, 123
Morgan v. Ross, 74 Mo. 318; Riddle 111. App. 584, carnal assault.



§ 1283] SEDUCTION. 4965

respects the qiiantum of compensation.'* The person who
stands in loco parentis to an illegitimate child may recover
according to the same standard as a natural parent.'^ Damages
for wounded feelings, including a sense of personal and family
disgrace, are inferred as a natural and necessary consequence of
the seduction, and need not be specially alleged.*" There can-
not be a recovery of damages based on the future condition of
the daughter and the offspring of the seduction, or for the
former's loss of marriage.*^ In an action by the seduced
woman the publicity given to the fact of seduction by the
defendant may be proven in aggravation of damages if it has
been pleaded,*^ and in such action the plaintiff may recover for
her anguish of mind, and the pain and suffering incident to the
birth of a child, the fruit of the seduction.*^ Under the Cali-
fornia statute the person seduced may recover exemplary dam-
ages regardless of whether she was rendered unconscious because
of the conduct of the defendant and he committed the act under
circumstances which made him guilty of rape, or whether she
consciously consented thereto.**

As the action is not generally maintainable on the mere rela-
tion of parent and child, there must be some proof of loss of
service, or other loss resulting from the seduction. Proof of
sexual intercourse, or even of seduction, will not sustain the
action.** The plaintiff must show that there resulted therefrom
some direct injury to his rights as master.*^ It will be assumed
that there is a loss of service if pregnancy follows, or sickness,
or the communication of any disease.*' So if the sense of

38 Anderson v. Aupperle, 51 Ore. 42 Simons v. Busby, 119 Ind. 13.

556, quoting the text ; Magninay v. 43 Gemmill v. Brown, 25 Ind. App.

Saudek, 5 Sneed 146. 6.

The recovery for loss of time is 44 Marshall v. Taylor, 98 Cal. 55,

governed by what the ])laintiff has 35 ^^^ g^. 244

earned in hor vocation. The physi- 45 q^^^^^. ^ Taylor, 82 y\o. 341 ;

clan's fee may be recovered without j^j^^^y ^ Laughenour, SO X. C.

showing it has been paid. Lamp- gg.. j^^^^^^ ^ Boardman, 20 Iowa



446; Hill v. Wilson, 8 Blackf. 123.



man v. Brunning, 120 Iowa 167.

39TittIebaum v. Boehmcke, 81 N.

J. L. 697, 35 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1062. 46\Yhite v. Nellis, 31 N. Y. 40.5,

40 Lunt V. Philbrick, 59 N. H. 59 ; 88 Am. Dec. 282.

Willeford v. Bailey, 132 N. C. 402. 47 Anderson v. Ryan, 8 111. 583;

41 Comer v. Taylor, 82 Mo. 341. Leucker v. Steileu, 89 id. 545, 31



4966



SUTHEKLAND ON DAMAGES.



[§ 1283



shame and wrong-doing diminish the servant's ability to work.*®
Pregnancy or the birth of a child is not essential. It is suffi-
cient if there be illness of the daughter, resulting from the
seduction, and a consequent inability or reduced ability to
labor, or if there be expenses necessitated by the same cause.*'
It is not important to the right of action that the loss should
result from the seduction in any particular way. It will be
enough if a loss has been occasioned which is a legal, natural
and direct cpnsequence of the wrong.®" Tlie parent need not,
in order to recover damages, including those which are
exemplary, show that his daughter's debauchment was accom-
plished by seductive arts.®^ The age of the daughter and the
circumstances under which she was debauched may aggravate
or mitigate the damages, but they do not afford any basis for
limiting, as matter of law, the father's damages to his actual



Am. Rep. 104; Hewit v. Prime, 21
Wend. 79; Hogan v. Cregan, 6 Rob-
ert. 138; Mohelsky v. Hartmeister,
68 Mo. App. 318, 324.

48 In Blagge v. Ilsley, 127 Mass.
191, Colt, J., said: "There was
evidence from several witnesses, in-
cluding the plaintiff and the daugli-
ter, that the latter appeared strong
and well before the alleged seduc-
tion, and that afterwards she became
nervous and excitable, and did not
appear to be herself. Upon this
part of the case the jury were told
that the plaintiff might recover If
they were satisfied that, as the im-
mediate result of the criminal act,
the health of the daughter failed,
and there was a consequent loss of
ability to render service; and it
must have been found by the jury
that the proximate effect of the se-
duction was an incapacity to work.
In the opinion of a majority of the
court, it cannot be declared, as mat-
ter of law, that this instruction was
erroneous, or that the evidence did
not justify the finding. The decline
in the daughter's health and spirits



directly followed the wrong charged.
The daughter was herself a witness,
and there was opportunity for the
jury to judge of her pliysical
strength and temperament, her nat-
ural delicacy and sensibility to the
injury alleged. It cannot be laid
down as a matter of law that loss
of health would not be the natural,
probable and direct consequence of
the defendant's act, although that
act was followed by no sexual dis-
ease and no pregnancy. Shame,
humiliation and mental distress, af-
fecting the sensibilities of the victim
and her capacity for faithful serv-
ice, may well be a probable and
natural consequence of the wrong,
wholly without regard to the fear of
abandonment or exposure."

«Id.; Night v. Wilcox, 18 Barb.
212; White v. Nellis, 31 id. 279;
Abraham v. Kidney, 104 Mass. 222,
6 Am. Rep. 620; Stiles v. Tilford,
10 Wend. 339.

soXight V. Wilcox, 15 Barb. 279.

BlHein v. Holdridge, 78 Minn.
468. Compare Palmer v. Baum, 123



§ 1283]



SEDCCTION.



4967



money loss.®^ WLere the illness of the daughter, following
seduction, is not the consequence thereof, but of the publication
of her shame, it is not a proximate result of the wrong. ^^

It is competent to show the circumstances under which the
female was seduced and the means used for corrupting her
mind, — the promises, flattery or deception employed.** An
exception has been made of promises of marriage by some
courts because the damages for the breach of it belong to the
daughter seduced.** When such evidence is admitted the jury
should be cautioned to give no damages for breach of such
promise.*^ It may be proved in what manner and on what
terms the defendant visited her, the family and her relations."
Evidence in a father's action of a promise of marriage is not
admissible as a ground of damage,*' nor can he recover com-
pensation for the support and maintenance of the illegitimate



111. App. 584, a case of carnal as-
sault.

62 Id., citing Fox v. Stevens, 13
Minn. 252; Russell v. Chambers, 31
Minn. 54; Stoudt v. Shepherd, 73
Mich. 558; McAuley v. Birkhead, 13
Ired. 28, 55 Am. Dec. 427; Kennedy
V. Shea, 110 Mass. 147, 14 Am. Rep.
584; Barbour v. Stephenson, 32 Fed.
66; Lawrence v. Spence, 9!) N. Y.
669 ; White v. Murtland, 71 111. 250,
22 Am. Rep. 100.

53 Night V. Wilcox, 14 N. Y. 413.

54 Watson V. Watson, 53 Mich.
168; Bracey v. Kibbe, 31 Barb.
273; Phelin v. Kenderdine 20 Pa.
354; White v. Campliell. 13 Gratt.
573; Fox V. Stevens, 13 Minn. 272;
Kahn v. Freytag, 2 Robert. 678;
Parker v. Monteith, 7 Ore. 277.

55 Comer v. Taylor, 82 Mo. 341;
Foster v. Schofield, 1 Johns. 297 ;
Clark V. Fitch, 2 Wend. 459, 20
Am. Dec. 639; Gillett v. Mead, 7
Wend. 193; Brownell v. McKwen, 5
Denio 367; Kip v. Bcrdaii, 20 N. J.
L. 239.

In Pennsylvania, if tlie inter-
course is admitted, the seduction



being denied, the father may show,
in aggravation of damages, that the
defendant, after discovering the
woman was pregnant, had agreed to
marry her. Milliken v. Long, 188
Pa. 411.

56 Phelin v. Kenderdine, 20 Pa.
354.

57 Herring v. Jester, 2 Houst. 66 ;
Parker v. Monteith, 7 Ore. 277 ; Da-
vidson V. Goodall, 18 N. 11. 423;
Brownell v. McEwen, 5 Denio 367.

If the defendant held out expecta-
tions to the plaintiff and induced
the reasonable belief that he in-
tended to marry his daughter the
insult done in tlie abuse of his hos-
pitality and the betrayal of his
confidence may be considered in
awarding compensation for his in-
jured feelings. Lunt v, Philbrick,
59 X. II. 50.

58 Rol)inson v. Burton, 5 Harr.
335: Gillett v. Mead, 7 Wond. 193;
Odell V. Stephens, 12 Ind. 384 ; Her-
ring v. Jester, 2 Houst. 66; Kip v.
Bordan, 20 N. J. L. 239; Uinos v.
Sinclair, 23 Vt. 108.



4968 SUTHERLAND ON DAMAGES. [§ 1283

child.^^ But where the seduced may sue in her own name she
may allege and prove both the promise of marriage and seduc-
tion with a view to damages for the double wrong, ^° and may
prove many acts on the part of the defendant though they
extend over a considerable period of time, as well as all the con-
sequences of the seduction. ^^ In an action by the party seduced
exemplary damages may be recovered regardless of the exist-
ence or non-existence of malice on the part of the defendant,
and regardless of whether such damages are alleged.®^ In
such an action the use of force is an aggravation of the wrong,®'
and the jury may regard any indignities offered her during the
trial, any false imputations against her character or virtue, in
which event they will be considered as wantonly made.®^ The
plaintiff may show his relationship to the seduced and the
situation of the family,®* and that the defendant aggravated
his wrong-doing by producing an abortion.®® There cannot be
a recovery for an abortion and the attendant indignities unless
damages therefor are specially pleaded, particularly if another
suit be pending against the defendant.®'

There is some conflict of decision on the question of prov-
ing the character and social standing of the plaintiff; but it is
believed that where he sustains such relation to the seduced
as to suffer injury to his feelings through her dishonor it is,
according to the weight of authority, competent for him to
show, to affect damages, the character and social standing of

59 Hitchman v. Whitney, 9 Hun 62 Verwers v. Carpenter, 166 Iowa
512; Sargent v. , 5 Cow. 106; 273.

Haynes v. Sinclair, 23 Vt. 108. 63 Marshall v. Taylor, siipra.

The rule applies where pregnancy 64 Ferguson v. Moore, 98 Tenn.

follows a carnal assault. Palmer v. 342.
Baum, 123 111. App. 584.' 65 Wilson v. Sproul, 3 P. & W.

60 §§ 983, 984; Lee v. Hefley, 21 49

Ind. 98; Fleetford v. Barnett, 11 66 White v. Murtland, 71 111. 250,

Colo. App. 77. ^

61 McCoy V. Trucks, 121 Ind. 292 ; ^ , i p e v.
01, ^^ ' T, 10J T J T-c Bromme, 26 Wis. 372; Gunder v.
Shewaltcr v. Bergman, 124 Ind. lo5;

Russell V. Chambers, 31 Minn. 54; ^ibbits, 153 Ind. 591, 600; Nolan

Badder v. Keefer, 91 Mich. 611; v. Glynn, 163 Iowa 146, citing the

Baird v. Boehner, 77 Iowa 622; text.
Breiner v. Nugent, 136 Iowa 322. 67 Ferguson v. Moore, supra.



§ 1283] SEDUCTION. 4969-

his o^vn family and the defendant's pecuniary circumstances.^®
It is held in Indiana that in an action by the seduced female
the defendant's financial standing may be shown ; ^^ but in Iowa
neither the plaintiff's financial circumstances nor that of her
family is a proper subject of proof if the defendant did not
avail himself of it to effect the seduction."^" The measure of
damages in this action is peculiarly within the province of the
jury.'^ It was long ago remarked by Wilmot, C. J., that
'^actions of this sort are brought for example's sake, and although
plaintiff's loss in this case may not really amount to the value
of twenty shillings, yet the jury have done right in giving lib-
eral damages." '^ ''It is believed," said Sherwood, C. J., "that
no case can be found in the books where the verdict in an action
such as this has been set aside upon the sole ground of awarding
excessive damages." '^ There is especial reason why verdicts
will not be interfered wdth where the seduced is the plaintiff.'*

Debauchment mth seduction is one injury, and debauchment
W'ithout it is another. The rule for the admeasurement of the
damages in the one case differs from that in the other. In the
former, exemplary damages are allowable ; but if sexual inter-
course takes place without seduction — without the aid of flat-
tery and artifice — no recovery can be had by the father beyond
the loss of services and incidental expenses, unless the debauch-
ment is accomplished with force and violence, or under circum-

68 McAuley v. Birkhead, 13 Ired. 69 Shewalter v. Borgman, supra. •

28, 55 Am. Dec. 427; Grable v. Wilson v. Shepler, 86 Ind. 275;;

Margrave, 4 111. 372, 38 Am. Dec. Gemmill v. Brown, 25 Ind. App. 0..

88; Peters v. Lake, 66 111. 206: Her- 70 West v. Druff, 55 Iowa 335.

ring V. Jester, 2 Houst. 06 ; White 71 Riddle v. McGinnis, 22 W. Va.

V. Murtland, supra; Clem v. 253, 280.

Holmes, 33 Gratt. 722, 36 Am. Rep. 72 Tullidge v. Wade, 3 Wils. 18

793; Parker v. Monteith, 7 Ore. Kerns v. Hagenbuchle, 60 N. Y.

277; Applegate v. Ruble, 2 A. K. Super. 228.

Marsh. 128; Lavery v. Crooke, 52 78 Luther v. Shaw, 157 Wis. 234,

Wis. 612, 38 Am. Rep. 768; Riddle 52 L.R.A.(N.S.) 85, citing the

V. McGinnis, 22 W. Va. 253. Con- text; :Morgari v. Ross, 74 Mo. 318;

tra, Hodsoll v. Taylor, L. R, 9 Q. Marshall v. Taylor, 98 Cal. 55, 35

B. 79; Dain v. WyckofT, 7 N. Y. Am. St. 144; Mighell v. Stone, 74

191; Watson v. Watson, 53 Mich. 111. App. 129; Gunder v. Tibbits;

168. See Haynes v. Sinclair, 23 Baird v. Boelimcr, supra.

Vt. 108. 74 Marshall v. Taylor, stipra.



4970 SUTHERLAND ON DAMAGES. [§ 1283

stances constituting the crime of rape. In that event exemplaiy
damages may be recovered,'* and the compensatory damaj^es are
measured by the same standard as in other cases.'^

In an action by a wife to recover damages for the seduction
of her husband evidence is admissible to prove the affectionate
feeling entertained by him for her before the defendant inter-
vened, and to show a subsequent change of feeling ; and for the
same purpose, and to show the mental suffering of the plaintiff,
proof may be made of manifestations of remorse by him in
interviews with her, and of gi-ief by her after the intimacy
between him and the defendant began."

§ 1284. Evidence for defendant in mitigation. The bad
moral character of the plaintiff and his character for chastity,
it is held in ISTew York, cannot be proved in reduction of dam-
ages. Comstock, J., speaking for the court, said: "It is true
that in actions of this kind compensation is given for injured
sensibilities of the parent, and that a pecuniary value is placed
upon the society and attentions of a virtuous daughter. But
to justify evidence of bad reputation in general, or in a par-
ticular respect, it must first be shown that the sensibilities of
such a parent are less acute, and that the society and affec-
tions of a virtuous daughter are to him less valuable than to
other men. This cannot be affirmed in fact, and there is no
such presumption in law." '* The defendant will not be per-
mitted to show that the plaintiff is devoid of natural sensi-
bilities.'® In Delaware the defendant may show the plaintiff's
dissolute habits, though not his general reputation in respect to
virtue ; *° and in Tennessee it may be shown by general repu-
tation that the plaintiff is a person of profligate principles and
dissolute habits, but evidence of particular acts should not be
received.®^ It is no defense to the parent's action that the
daughter consented willinjylv to the seduction, for her consent

75Mohelsky v. Hartmeister, 68 78 Dain v. WyckofiF, IS X. Y. 47.

Mo. App. 318: De Haven v. Helvie, 79 Grider v. Dent, 22 :\Io. 490.

126 Ind. 82. 80 Robinson v. Burton. 5 Harr.

76 Koenke v. Bauer, 162 :Mo. App. 335.

718. 81 Reed v. Williams, 5 Sneed 580;

77 Ash V. Prunier, 44 C. C. A. 675, Thompson v. Clendening, 1 Head
105 Fed. 722. 287.



§ 1284] sEDUCTioif. 4971

will not deprive him of liis action ; '^ neither is the defendant's
responsibility lessened because he accomplished his purpose by
force,*^ In an action by the woman for breach of promise and
seduction her criminal misconduct, known to the defendant
before he made the promise to marry and participated in by
him, cannot lessen his liability."

It is presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
that the person seduced was virtuous at the time of the seduc-
tion, and was a comfort and help to her parents if she lived at
home.*^ But her general character is in issue on the question of
damages. It may be impeached by general evidence,^® and
specific acts of lewdness and immorality may in some states be
shown " if the seduced is the plaintiff.*' ISTot only may want
of previous chastity be proved by general reputation and specific
acts of unchastity, but it may be proved by evidence which tends
to show impure conversation and improper and familiar associa-
tion with men.*' In some states the evidence to impeach char-
acter for chastity must be confined to general reputation.^"
Previous chastity is not essential to the cause of action, but
antecedent misconduct may have much influence on the question
of damages for the parent's shame and disgrace,'^ or for that

82Bartlett v. Kochel, 88 Ind. 425; 750. See Wallace v. Clark, 2 Overt.

Barbour v. Stephenson, 32 Fed. 66; 93, 5 Am. Dec. 654.

McAulcy V. Birkhead, 13 Ired. 28, 87 White v. :Miirtland, 71 111. 250,

55 Am. Dec. 427. 22 Am. Rep. 100; Love v. Masoner,

83Dalman v. Koning, 54 Mich. 6 Baxter 24, 32 Am. Rep. 522:

320; Bradshaw v. Jones, 103 Tenn. Verry v. Watkins, 7 C. & P. 308;

331. Hogan v. Cregan, 6 Robert. 138;

84FIeetford v. Barnett, 11 Colo. Kahn v. Freytag, 2 id. 678. See

App. 77. Ford v. Jones, 62 Barb. 484.

85 People V. Brewer, 27 Mich. 137; 88 Gemmill v. Brown, supra.
Gemmill v. Brown, 25 Ind. App. 6 : 89 West v. Druff, supra; Stewart
Robinson v. Powers, 129 Ind. 480. v. Smith, 92 Wis. 76.

86 Rood V. Williams, Robinson v. 90 Shattuck v. Myers, 13 Ind. 46;
Burton, supra; Smith v. Milburn, IIofTman v. Kermercr, 44 Pa. 452;
17 Iowa 30; Lea v. Henderson, 1 Smith v. Yaryan, 69 Ind. 445, 35
Cold. 146; Bamfield v. :Ma8sey, 1 Am. Rep. 232; Doyle v. Jessup, 29
Camp. 461; Dodd v. Xorris, 3 id. 111. 460.

519; West v. Druff, 55 Iowa 335; 91 Hill v. Wilson, 8 Blackf. 123;

Dalman v. Koning, supra; Parker Comer v. Taylor, 82 Mo. 341: Simp-
V. Coture, 63 Vt. 155, 25 Am. St. son v. Grayson, 54 Ark. 404, 26 Am.



4972



SUTKEELAND ON DAMAGES.



[§ 1284



of the person seduced when she is the plaintiff,®^ 'Troof of
former unchastity may be considered in mitigation of damages,
and to show that the sexual intercourse was without enticement,
artifice, persuation or solicitation, but is not of itself a defense
if the plaintiff had, for a reasonable time before the alleged
seduction, been leading a virtuous life." ^^ Where the person
seduced brings the action she may not recover for loss of char-
:acter, or for shame or disgrace if no evidence of her previous
character is given.^*

The consent or connivance of the parent or one suing in the
character of master to the seduction will be a bar to the action.
And conduct, not amounting thereto, but only to negligence or
want of ordinary prudence, may be shown as tending to mitigate
damages.^^ In such action it has been ruled that a marriage
between the seducer and the seduced and his acquittal on an
indictment for the seduction may be proved for the same pur-



St. 52; Smith v. Milburn, 17 Iowa
30; Milliken v. Long, 188 Pa. 411.
See Lea v. Henderson, 1 Cold. 146,
holding that the fact that another
person had had intercourse with
the person seduced before her al-
leged seduction by the defendant,
this being unknown to him or to the
public at the time of the seduction,
is not to be considered in mitiga-
tion.

The unchaste conduct of the fe-
male is provable in mitigation un-
der a general denial without being
otherwise pleaded. Wandell v. Ed-
wards, 25 Hun 498.

One who injures the reputation
of another cannot reap a benefit
from his wrong; hence the defend-
ant cannot show that after the
seduction the plaintiff's character
was bad. Shewalter v. Bergman,
123 Ind. 155; Ayer v. Colgrove, 81
Hun 322. Nor that the female was
guilty of specific unchaste acts. Mc-
Kern v. Calvert, 59 Mo. 243; Mor-
gan V. Ross, 74 id. 318.



92 Olson V. Rice, 140 Iowa 630.

93 Stowers v. Singer, 24 Ky. L.
Rep. 395, and cases cited; Patter-
son V. Hayden, 17 Ore. 238.

94 Wilson V. Mangold, 154 Iowa
352.

95 Travis v. Barger, 24 Barb. 614;
Richards v. Fouts, 11 Ired. 466;
Graham v. Smith, 1 Edm. Sel. Cas.
267 ; Sherwood v. Tetman, 55 Pa.
77; Parker v. Elliott, 6 Munf. 587;
Smith V. Masten, 15 Wend. 270.

In an action for the seduction of
the plaintiff's daughter the fact of
the seduction of another of his
daughters three years previously by
other than the defendant, and the
circumstances connected therewith,
is not admissible in mitigation as
tending to show that plaintiff was
chargeable with careless indiffer-
ence in affording opportunities for
criminal intercourse between the de-
fendant and the daughter whose
seduction he is alleged to have ac-.
complished. Tourgee v. Rose, 19 R.
I. 432.



§ 1285] SEDUCTION. 4973

pose.^® In Illinois and elsewhere it has been held that an offer
of marriage made by the defendant after the seduction cannot be
considered in mitigation.^'^ Evidence of the defendant's general
reputation for chastity and purity of life is not admissible.''
If money furnished by the defendant to the plaintiff's daughter
is not shown to have been applied to plaintiff's benefit or in
reduction of his damages such payments cannot be proved.^^



Online LibraryJ. G. (Jabez Gridley) SutherlandA treatise on the law of damages : embracing an elementary exposition of the law, and also its application to particular subjects of contract and tort (Volume 5) → online text (page 15 of 192)