The sun. (Wilmington, Del.) 1897-19??, 1898-03-02
VERDICT RENDERED, $1,000
Case Of W. F. Pretty man VS. < ?.
Williamson Concluded.
A SENSATIONAL SUIT ENDED
Damages Given for the Alienation Of
Wifc's Affections.--Appeal Taken
by the Plaintiff's Attorneys.
Judges Charge.
A SENSATIONAL SUIT ENDED

The sensational case of William +
Prcttyman W. Edwin Z. Williamson, ir
which the plaintiff claimed SO, ,OOO dam
ages for the alienation of his wife s affec
tlons, was concluded in Supreme Cour,
yesterday afternoon. a. -.
The case has been On trial for Che pasI
four days and was attended by features
that attracted more than the usual quota
OF ''gosei mongers."
When The jury entered the court room
at 3.W O'Clock yesterday afternoon tt
lvndertheIr verdict the utmost quictness
prevailed, but as soon as the decision
was glven--that OF $1,000 to asslage the
wounded feelings Of the injured husband
the stiffness was broken and the buzz
OF conversation had to Ec stopped by Il
peemplory command from he Associate
Justice James PtnncwlIl, who has had
charge OF the case.
Immediately after the rendering Of the
veidlct James W. polder, ESD, and
! Walter II. Hayes, Esq, attorneys forthe
! plaintiff took an appeal and the court
postponed Il decision until Tuesday
morning Of next week .,,s ~-s--.s
CHARGE OF THE COURT.
Judge Prnncwill was very impartial IN
his charge to the jury, and curing his
remarks said:
'Ihe husband is entitled to the so.
clety, assistance and services OF his wife,
and whoever by the alienat ion Of the
wills affections, deprlvcs hIm thereof,
commits wrong against he husband for
which he is liable to respond in damages.
l Where ii e basis uf lie action is ii e
alena,i N OF the wiic's affections, the
measure OF damage Is The value OF her
services and the marital cons,rt, that is,
her conjugal society, Affections and as
siStancc, less the value Of the performs
ance of the husbands duty to support, j.,
clothe, cherish and care for her.
AS to mitigation of damages evidence
will be received which tends to show
that the ptainiff has in fact suffered less
injury than would otherwise br a prob
able inference from the act complained
Of. 1t is proper, therefore, to consider,
in litigation of damages. any evidence
which shows that Dri.ts...r tnr relations
between her and her husband were I'M
,iun ior one another; but there was bnt
, slight intercourse bet vrcn them; that he
wa, cruel or unIiind in his treatment Of
her; that he failed tn support her. and
any misconduct on his part tending t"
show their unhappy relations or lack o.!
affection.
The fact, however, that the plaintiff
and his wife lived nnlmppiiv tnget her
Icirt the defendant appeared and even
were much estranged, would not consti-
tutc a bar to the plaintiff : action, but
would 60, as we have already said, in
mitigation of damages.
III, however the conduct OF the ll,ls-
band has been such as to justify the
wife in leaving him, he cannot maintain
an action against another who assists
her, or receives or harirrS her, provided
his assistance is rendered from motives
If humanity and not from an evil
motive or purpose, or in bad faith to-
ward the husband. | Bishop on VI. and
b. Sec. 1862.
''Ii Won should believe t lat there is
no pruwf OF adultery in this case, but
ar" satisfied that the drfendent did
ALLEVIATE the affections Of Plaintiffs wife,
volr verdict should he for such amount
as in your Judgment will c"mn ns;lc
the plaintiff for the loss OF his Witc'S
services and marital cnn-olt, less the
value OF the husbands duty t, support,
cluthc, cherish and care for her; pro-
viIcd, however, that in no event can
YOU award damages iur any wrong or
injury committed prior to til" fifth day
OF May, l>o4, that icing three years be-
fore the commencement Of the present
action which was entered ON the fifth
day Of May, lS97
But &, nt!cmcn OF the jury. il you be-
lirVr from p,eprndcranc" Of tie r\l-
,icnrr that the defendant wiitnlv and
nalciolsiv committed the injury or
wrong cunplainrd III in this action y"n
may in addition to any compensatory
damages HAT Won thin!, HIM entitled to,
award to he plaintiff -nrh damages as
You may consid,rpromr as Il pul hmrnt
to the defendant and an example to
thcrs. But we say I" You hat such
damages are based ON the r1urnlitv OF
the offence and its malicious, wiilul and
aggravated character, and yon must be
satisfied that such was the character ui
the offence before YOU can award dam
ages oi this kind 1t has been held by
this court heretofore that, 1T was Il
question for the jury to say whct her
there were cicvn,s'ancos Of aggravation
in he casn which ought in their jndg-
ment to require departure from the
general rule Of compcntatorv damages,
and which called on thu to add any
[ hinr hv Mily nf nnhlic pXraunl, OF pIln.