Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-05-27
charles J. Goodall vs. LurerDa Tburm,n


This action breach 10 marry, and the
coyery was for S5,0iO damages.
1t IS Insisted that the damages excessive think,
but whether that extent which would the
subject authorize Us to reverse that ground alone, differ
@ sl1 4 ); ~ =, ~ S, ~ - ~ ~ ll- IN .Ie 70
marry Is used Tor the bas pu poses by nupneped men, and
in these the damages cannot we'll be too heavy In this
proof admitted tending to show that the defendant succeeded
IN The seduction Of the pain by the conhdenes inspired in that
She certainly delivered OF illegmate child,
which she charges upon him, and insists the induced to
her virtue assurances
that he would comply with his contract marry her. This
proved.
But question Law is here made as to the admssliy of
evidence Of seduction in suit for breach Of
The Court below admitted it, in EggrayaOn OF damages
To show this error we Pre- referred in Green
leafs EV. 49, where illustration Of the rule, that the
cs the act on he saws il hss been held 1 a.
sumps for breach Of promise marry edenee OF seduction
is not admissible in aavsuon Of damages with references to
The contrary settled in Conn Wilson, Tenn.
early 1914. The Court says, " the referred 20 in
Rep II and S9 demonstrate that proper
this Ience, aggraTa:ion Of morality
qures in order repess the bdnOus advances Of the male
under dishonest and seductive assurances Of We
that this decision has heen departed from in
practice by courts Whatever the opinions Of elementary
writer's, or the Cours OF other States may be- ID AT IS cur law
and not disposed to change it, promise is
not unequeny one OF The base and wicked cks OF the WY
seducer 10 accomplish ms purposes y overcoming thaS resist
which female virtue makes his unhoy designs When
seducti follows engagement 70 marry, may we'll he
asserted that the promise on the part OF the an was Intended
to cover lis designs upon her virtue, by winning her affections
snd confidence
The fact that the hypocrca utor sprepsred destroy
shows concusiTey that it bis int ntion to
is gener y, the result Consequence Of his TO
marry This injury, en is sufficiently proxnate 10 be taken
un in estimating the dsmagesin suit OF this de-
Ne fully concur Will his Honor in thai part Of his charge
TO which objection made the jury
eved testimony in the cause that the defendant
tered marriage with the plaintiff and that he
sorted The debauehing ahd seiueing
her, and for the purpose Of gratifying his usu and brutal
sions the jury would give the plann exemplary and
Where no other injury follows breach Of this
dspp iud hopes ami the modification Of rejected love, the
Of damages scud because honor and chas
tity e ana the injury may he repaired But when
al lost happiness homer aud csracier case IS certainly
made exemplary and substantial damages That the
h action fordauag 10 this last case can ake no differ
entitled
this sIreng proposition in the charge could apply II 50
was improper charge should be confined to The made
ois,ct II cle boulh correct whch had no Application to
the facts in Bot there testimony tending raise
he Court to dsermius whether it sufficient
vas proper t TO the iuy, and declare the effect
in law established to their satisfaction he did nothing
II ia onpdd that as the defendant wss poor it was errons-
Gus in the Court charge he DID, that they could net look
@ ms ay - j tbat the DAMAGES to I've recovered are in the
sound discrenof the Jury under the circumstances surround
- tb defendant can but wnat the plaintiff ought 10 re-
~ The nav Iook 70 the ran and condition the defend.
ant" mans poverty certainly should not him from
d nages colnrnensrate injury inflicted 1t enough
tat ty cannot collected when recovered The charge wound
perhaps fri and accurate to h.vs rsle sGne
reference 10 the the defendants natter to be looked
to discretion Of the Jury bat error cannot be predcaed OF
this omission
THERE'S this record seriously nTeacbng the
character plaintiff for Of prudence and proper female
mosy in her with and IS her sister MaThs
the main witness r proving the Wel as seiur0n,
convicted Of contradictions and Inconsistencies but The
r hand they sustained in their character and reputa
ion by many respectable Witnesses All these matters have
len passe uOa by jury, and they have in their verdict fully
indcaied lhem and not for that th conclusions
| wrong:
Bu amidst the doubts difficulties in The proof the
rIct ITSELF and paerHiiyo the child think the vere
WAS very strong one right in this Kind OF to lay
heavy hand upon the foul deli crate beryer u worthy
an confidence bus there be danger gting 50 r as 10
hold out temptation unprinped woman &c seek her Tor
tune BY the oeasy Of her honor ayengc
wrongs The Of society and public policy as well
as the cause morality lie put in jeopardy by either &
treme Though It is generally yet not always So that IN
fau entirely the side OF the in these &C.
curepces There may be DANGER unless wise dsofmi All
Tved by iures and courts between the cases IN rterece
10 lie character Of parties, and the attending erest noes
~ bldir out tribe these large veicts 10 The Nk d
oncped to entrap YOUTH and tempt the ncaaou'
a A1d Unsusl ect u -, :. ~.
A / W not feel authorized grant new trial N th
~ upon the sing Iound OF excessive danagsat on y
consider the am an, en- r dprOP ronae 10 the Gaze 1sd- oa
IN t reof The las this eet c)rroty laid doFn IN
reenesk Sec 255. trials at common law the jury are n;
oer da nages aud where there Is nc n HsA Y
Of DAMAGES the court ordinarily, will not disturb their verdict
un!ess on grounds Of IgeHe, passion OF eorNen N IN
iuryn TO this eonfoDed our prAse ans Il tn
only safe one on ths subject