The herald., 1898-12-24
ACTION RIGHT
JUDGE ALLEN sUsTAINs RHINE
SMITH IN HIS CONDUCT
LOOMS GETS NO DAMAGES
Suit for Alienation of a Wife's Affec-
tions Fails to Secure Desired
Monetary Relief

The suit wherein r. NJ. Eoomis sought to
recover 5000 damages from his 1ather-in-
law, Il. Rhinesmith, for alienation oil MS
wife's affections, was the subject OF an
opinion, wherein findings and judgment
were ordered for the defendant.
Loomis alleged that the defendant, with
out his consent, persuaded and entieed his
wife to take their children from his home
and to reside away from him, by reason OF
which his home had been broken up ana
lost. and he had been deprived of the So
cety of his wife and his children, and sui
fered great damages i'll the sum OF so0OO, as
stated Judge Allen says:
The testimony upon the trial OF this
cause shows that, while plaintiff is poor
man and has had great difficulty to main
tain his family, he sought to dc the best he
could under the circumstances. Notwith-
standing this, his wife appealed 10 her
father for protection, representing to him
that her husband had illtreated her, beaten
her with weapons, threatened her life and
that she was afraid longer to remain under
his roof with her children.
Defendant knew of plaintiffs poverty
and difficulties in supporting his family; IN
fact, it is shown that defendant has con-
tributed very largely toward the support OF
his daughter and her children Tor several
wears. He accepted his daughters state
ment as true and furnished her home and
asylum for several months, in which time
the wife filed an application for divorce,
setting out facts under oath which, II true,
would indicate the plaintiff to be tend.
Shortly after this divorce suit was filed,
however, at plaintiffs instance. his wife
and children returned to him, since which
time they have continued to live together.
"a husband and father possesses the
right to enjoy the company and society of
the wife and children, and if any person, by
threats or inducements of any kind, de-
prives him of this right a cause of action
exists in favor of the injured party. Even
the parent has no right to interfere and
cause the separation of man and wife and
the destruction of the home; vet it does
not follow that father, whose home should
always be open to his children as a refuge
in time of need is liable if he affords his
children and grandchildren an asylum in
the honest belief that he is protecting them
from the aggressions of an unnatural hus-
band and father. No unlawful motive could
be imputed to father under such circum-
stances
Common humanity demands that he
should extend the shelter OF his homs' to the
unfortunate daughter and her children
should the husband fail in support or be-
come prohigate, drunken or idle. The
fathers motives would be lawful and proper.
If this be true when actual cruelty on the
part Of the husband exists, is it not equally
true when the father acts upon the honest
belief that they do exist?
at is conceded in tins case that the vile
represented a condition of affairs at her
home which would demand unon the part
of the father his protecting care. There are
circumstances surrounding their life which
would indicate to the defendant the truth
Of these statements. He acted in the bclef
that they were true. and to hold him ia-
bic for damages now that the daughter and
wife admits their falsity would be to at
tach penalty for the performance OF an act
done from proper motives. with good inten-
tions. based upon honest convictions In my
opinion the defendant did what father
should do under the circumstances and is not
liable on account of such act
bindings and judgment are ordered for
the defendant"