Case ID: ny_99/html/0669-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Danforth, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Lawrence, Respondent, v. George Spence, Appellant.
    In an action by a father for tlie seduction of Ms daughter, it is immaterial whether the defendant accomplished his purpose by artifice and persuasion, or by force. If the testimony shows that the daughter was debauched, by defendant without the father’s consent, and the result was a loss to-him of Ms daughter’s service, the cause of action is made out.
    (Argued June 12, 1885;
    decided June 26, 1885.)
    This was an action .brought by a father to recover damages, for the seduction of his daughter.
    The testimony of the daughter was to the effect that defendant accomplished his purpose by force and without her consent. Defendant’s counsel moved for a dismissal of the complaint on the ground that, by plaintiff’s own showing, there was no seduction, as defendant did not accomplish his purpose by artifice or persuasion, but by force, which motion was denied.
    The following is the mem. of opinion:
    “ The true question was tried,' and the proof was not different from the issue. The defendant concedes that he accomplished his purpose; the jury have found that the girl was debauched without her father’s consent. The result was a loss to him of his daughter’s service. This answered the fiction of the common law, and whether it was preceded by much or little, or no persuasion, but simply force, is a question with which an appellate court has no concern. Whether the defendant prevailed by false promises or artifice, by flattery or violence, a cause of action was made out. The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to have his damages assessed by the jury according to their estimate upon circumstances of which they alone could judge. No error was committed by the trial court in submitting the case to them.
    “It follows that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.”
    
      R. A. Parmenter for appellant.
    
      Henry A. Merritt for respondent.
   Danforth, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.