3 Mass. 189 | Mass. | 1807
Lead Opinion
The opinions held by the judge in the trial of this, cause were very liberal. It appears that the defendant was permitted to give in evidence any instances of misconduct, and even of indelicacy, in the plaintiff; and that, failing to produce proof of any such instances, his counsel desired to go into an inquiry respecting her general character. This was, in my opinion, very properly denied. It appears, from the declaration in this case, that the plaintiff had been seduced by the defendant, and that pregnancy was the consequence of the seduction. This, of itself, would degrade her in the estimation of the public; and the defendant wishes to avail himself of this degradation, a consequence of his own misconduct, to avoid the plaintiff’s action, or to reduce the sum she may recover in damages. No argument can show the absurdity of such a proposal in a stronger light than a bare statement of it. A gentleman, under pretence of courtship, pursues a lady to seduction, leaves her to suffer the pain and ignominy which necessarily follow, and when she appeals to the laws of her country for a pecuniary satisfaction, even that, inadequate as it is, is to be resisted or reduced, by urging her ignominy as a reason why she should not recover. To permit such a defence, would be-a reproach upon the administration of our laws. I am against a new trial.
It does appear to me that the defendant had every reasonable indulgence at the trial. To go further, and permit evidence of the plaintiff’s general character, injured and degraded, as it necessarily was ty the treatment she had received from the
Concurrence Opinion
concurred, and observed that the doctrine laid down by Lord Kenyon, in the case cited for the defendant, was good law. In common cases, where character is in issue, undoubtedly evidence of the public opinion is to be received.
The only point decided in the case at bar is, that when, after a promise of marriage, a woman is seduced and deserted by her lover, in consequence of' which she acquires a bad character, he shall not be permitted to avail himself of that character, in mitigation of the damages, in an action brought by her for the injury arising from the breach of his promise to marry her
Judgment according to the verdict.
[If it appear that the defendant was induced to make the promise, or continue the connection, either by misrepresentation, or wilful suppression of the real state of the circumstances of the family, and previous life of the plaintiff; this goes in bar of tb/ action, and not to the damages only.—Wheaton vs. Lewis, 1 C. & P. 529.—Horan vs. Humphreys, Loft. 80.—Foote vs. Hayne, 1 Car. & P. 546.—Ed.] .