14 Ky. 25 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1823
r_~ Cll - . - .to _ 5j o* -+>3' °i £ p^s* 9. *t> ÍX- 3 cr- re ^ .w. p ft. cr o,? pí’tL 2 s' ? i-i sS"'# g cr®*uo5 n 3 2'^“ !=33-§§'€' CD rt-23 CD Cu^.w “.•-o- CO {?S Í» 3.5 >*j SP ^ gv CD ^ o a -• 3 £L o. pr S. s 2' C CD g5!5'» titfg * SÉre^ *-«5" 2 §.<§ p. p a \g o**? -o, CL, &<»9 isf 8-P-3*g o D a Áicotir2*! u "a o S o oJ 5^ o 3>s' °i |*aS £ 53 ■o^p ” ^ <® - -- O 9* CD ; HT.-rk 3 ft E£r * ir rtS ffL W> O ¿5 r-t- ■ co "*t5 ■ cr -• 4'Svf:* 2-3 ScéS-'® «‘S P §■’ p' f CD S *S D |S-3 . fg 2 P .*-» SO V >v •— Q? *0 u fl , vu o a ^ CU o -Sc1 crq '.« 2 ,c& «-*- cr^ g .cr c? - 'cS r5 ra 8 'cL ^ o* b cr ^ ^ o_ rr , o o a a O _£2 ^ O ' o '-o ctí a 22 CD re 5 5? P-c¿ , ^ s u £ b - ■S-S 5 —* c — .2 cc pj V ^ s eT ^“o is Q O o- P p ^ . C^CTQ O v " .£^1 , , Cft • 2j.-t6 CD-13, p.-o ai-'T- 2 re.' g. < cy^o 3 p p _ C-P pg g JS o O ■ ‘ Ü «vX! ,(*0 . • r** B5 S £ •• bDu ^ Q-t 5 !=5 T3 ° J5 O -O c 5a &p n.g g. S’ 2 -c 2 -a " o 1*^03 § ? hí CD jr Ctj - - * g »^2 1 o i cu «2: co CD •O. ; O O ft, cdhs. «c «- ¡-j, ■ cató «.Yo ?o CO < cr CD rt* <j ’ CD p* o ^-<3^ > — '* CD CD “ . CO j/n r-* *-j£re’ftp ' p P o cSts-sTr B >% cí2^3ir¿sP2H.pJ09? cd a> ^ •» 5. p ?ra3 p. h* 3: i->_^ j P tw 18 ^-3 ro’ o o CLb tg *-1 Q-*r? - C3 O "» ^ Ó 2“ CD* ^ *-<i S CD P~ - r> C-> P » re re" 21- 2" s w' P ij » rf- re ^ £5- Sf“.'C, Í3T. 5TV d* ^ p 2 d" «-*• «■ S' 2 cr> hr) ^ O.. ^-^3 CD p* 5* P E3 CO c O CD Q. *3 - CD ' ^ oj CD ® "“-J “ §‘;i?ss o ft pr; a S^re re £- * ’ & g’. 9 g
g1 J3’ p p s' "~ 4 ’" Bj ÍB CD H 2fV§ -•- pvr-CO se a wa-'víí-Gi'Br <; ^ S- ^ cr (Tj o ^ u,0 B —< v-á ^ O. £• CO p s CD •*? CD ,<£$ 8 g- § o’. H CD a ; ‘ . . C3 TcP 5“ a H
■c- Ob’ 2 tej B.®q 3* O <CLj Si bo a ¡'■COi ’>’Xi * w. <1> iv'CtJ t- *- CD.12 - ■ o o p •d, -cl, g ^ “ ^ ® tf 3--re C. 63 ? -
The declaration,'however, in this case, charges the-defendants not only .with procuring the marriage of the plah)tiff’l(|aughter'Swithout her consent; but with en-f*cing her'daughter away from her, whereby she lost her service.
Whether Ihis.lSsfis a civil injury for which an action will lie, is more problematical. It is conceded on all hands, that prior to the abolition of military tenures, a father might maintain an action for the abdu&tion of his son an.d heir at law; but there was a difference of opinion whefheplhe.jpould do so for the abductionfoí’ any other child Beside^he heir; some holding that h@l|ould not, upon the suppbsUionfthat the only ground or cause of áction, ivas losing the value of the heir’s marriage; and others holding, that an action would lie for taking away "any of the children, because the parent had an interest in them alf. This difference of opinion amongst thejurists of England, was never settled by any direct adjudication of the courts of that country, even up to the time when Blackstone published his commentaries. He‘? however, thought that the action might maintained for the .abduction of any of the children,and ^vo’ ^'s appears to be the-better opinion, being m9re consistent with analogy and with the reason of the law. If, as was'supposéd by those who maintained the opinion that an action jyould not lie for the abduction of any child except.the heir, the injury consisted in the loss of the value of the heir’s marriage, the writ given in such case, would have mentioned the loss of the value of the marriage, or some fact from which the loss would have been necessarjiy implied; but in the form of the writ given in Fitzkerbertfs Ff. Brevium page 90, which was allowed by law,in such case,, there is no mention of the loss of the value of tljp marriage, nor of .any- fact from which it coul<&be necessarily implied. The writ goes for (he abduction only, and there might be an ab-
• The-next .question involved in th|-assignroent of error which we shall.notice, is, wheltier.the action, ought not to have been trespass viet arryis,'instead of trespass qn "the case. ■ "i
'I’raere might have been somu,d.0qhtif the loss of ser- • yiee' had 'been occasioned by taking-áway the daugh
The only other cjtaestion.presented by the assignment of error which we é|áll notice, grows out of (he exception taken by the.defendant, to the rejection by the circuit court of Ford said wife as- witnesses. In this we think that court efj%d. The declaration of Ford out of court, and when 1R)t upon oath, that he had to pay the damages or part of them, was but mere hearsay, and evidently incompetent to prove his interest. Ford should have been 'swjorn on his voire dire, or other competent evidence of his interest should have been introduced, beforehe-coald have been excluded.
The judgment rríóst be reversed with costs, and the cause remanded forja new trial to be had, not inqpnsii» tent with this opinion. '