Superior Court for Law and Equity, Jonesborough District.
March 1807.
In an action by the father for debauching his daughter, the defendant cannot give in evidence her whole moral character. But if the plaintiff insist for damages done to his feelings and the reputation of his family, then it may be proper to inquire into her character as to chastity.
In such an action, it is immaterial where the act of seduction happened, if the daughter was frequently assisting in her father’s family.
James Wallace, by his attorney, complains of William Clark, Jr., in custody, c., of a plea of trespass with force and arms, and strong hand, for breaking and entering said plaintiff’s house, and debauching his daughter Jane Wallace, and getting her with child, to his damage,c.; for this that, whereas the said Clark on the 20th day of December, 1805, and at divers other days and times between that day and the 4th day of February, 1806, then next ensuing, with force and arms, to wit, with swords, staves, and other offensive weapons in the county of ____, made assault on Jane Wallace, spinster, the daughter and then servant of said James, and beat, wounded, and evil treated her, and debauched her, and carnally knew her, and got her with child, whereby the said James lost the comfort and service of his said daughter and servant for a long time, during all the time aforesaid, and was forced to be at great labor and trouble, and to lay out a large sum of money, to wit $200, in maintaining her and taking care of her in the lying-in of the said child, and also upon the several days aforesaid, with force and arms, c., and also upon the several days aforesaid, broke and entered the dwelling-house of said James, and greatly disturbed him in his quiet possession and enjoyment thereof, and did him other injuries, and against the peace of the State, to the
Page 94
damage of the said plaintiff $1,000, and therefore he brings suit, and these are pledges to prosecute.
Plea, not guilty and issue.
WHITE and WILLIAMS, for the plaintiff.
We have proven that this young woman was resident at her father’s house, assisting the family, and that she lay in there.
If she appeared in any way to act as a servant, it is sufficient. 2 Esp. N. P. 645. The jury ought to take into view the injury to the feelings of the father and the disgrace of the family.
M’KENNEY, for the defendant, said he should give the moral character of the young woman in evidence, and adduced 2 Hay. 300, per
M’Coy, J.
Per Curiam.
This cannot be done, nor can we conceive a case, at present, where it were legal to put the whole moral character of a person in issue. So great are the frailties of our nature, that none are perfect.
Every citizen is entitled to the benefit of the laws in the preservation of his life, liberty, property, reputation, and if, in endeavoring to procure redress for injuries, we were to permit evidence of the moral character of an individual in every respect, endless contentions would arise calculated only to mangle the feelings and reputation of individuals. Courts of justice, so far from being a blessing, would, like Pandora’s box, no sooner be opened, than innumerable injuries would arise.
The character of an individual, as to particular virtues or vices, may sometimes come directly in issue, but never the entire moral character, composed of an assemblage of virtues or vices.
In the view of repairing the injury done to the father for the loss of services, it is perfectly unimportant whether the young woman was of easy virtue or not. If her morals in this respect have been relaxed, it may, for aught we know, be owing to the defendant.
Page 95
Should the plaintiff insist for damages done to his feelings and reputation of his family, then it may be proper to inquire into her character as to chastity, but not before.
M’KENNEY, YEARSLY, and WHITESIDE, for defendant. —
It appears from the evidence that this young woman had not lived much in her father’s house for twelve months before she became pregnant.
She had lived chiefly at her sister’s, several miles off, and had once hired herself to Mr. Shannon.
Under these circumstances she could not be considered as one of her father’s family, and consequently could not be assisting as a servant.
It is in proof that the child was begotten at her sister’s; the declaration therefore cannot be supported. The gist of this action i quare domum fregit. There could be no trespass to the house of the father when the young woman was begotten with child at the house of her sister.
The trespass is the principal ground of the action, and the begetting the child, per quod servitium amisit, accident only. 2 L. Ray. 1032; 3 Bl. Com. 142; 2 T. R. 167, 168; 3 Burr. 1878.
Per Curiam.
It is immaterial where the act of seduction happened.
This young woman was frequently assisting in her father’s family, and whether she was sometimes at her sister’s or not does not relate to the merits of the question.
Slight evidence of her assisting in the family is sufficient. Her father had the trouble and expense of her lying-in, for which he ought to be remunerated. Vide 1 Esp. 217. Verdict for the defendant.