Akerley v. Haines

Headnote

In trespass quaire clausum, by a father, for debauching and getting his daughter with child, per quod, &c., the grounds of the action are the loss of service, and expenses of lying in: it is therefore no defence to show ths daughter to be unchaste, unless the father has connived at her criminal intercourse.

This was an action of trespass for debauching and getting with child, Elizabeth, the daughter and servant of the

plaintiff, by which he lost her service, was forced to expend a large sum of money in her lying in, and had, with all his family, fallen into disrepute.

In support of the action the daughter herself, against whose admissibility no objection was made, testified to the facts, after which the counsel for her father acknowledged that the money recovered in this suit was intended for her benefit, and there rested his case.

Against it the defendant attempted to prove that the daughter was a woman of unchaste character; but the credibility of the witnesses to this point was opposed by counter evidence on the part of the plaintiff. The counsel, however, against him, insisted that if the daughter was of bad reputation, antecedently to the defendant’s connexion with her, the present action could not be maintained. The judge, before whom the cause was tried, thought otherwise, and charged the jury, that though they might believe in the previous want of chastity, they ought, nevertheless, to find a verdict for the plaintiff, but assess damages only for the loss of service and expense of lying in, and nothing for the loss of reputation. He could not, he said, see why a man who had the misfortune of having an unchaste child, should not be recompensed for an injury of this kind. He suffered as much by the loss of her service, and paid as much for her confinement, on her lying in, as if she had Deen virtuous and of fair character.

The jury, upon this, found in favor of the plaintiff two hundred dollars. Application was now made to set aside the verdict, for the misdirection of the judge, and as being contrary to evidence.

The verdict is, evidently, not founded on the evidence. The action is trespass quare clausum, and it ought to have been shown that it was committed within the house. The testimony proved a former unchastity; and as the plaintiff waived damages, on his own account, it ^became a question purely