Omaha daily bee., 1899-11-09
Massachusetts supreme Court Says

|
Love In Not n Question of Law.
A decision of the full bench OF the Mas
sachusetts supreme court, in a novel case
interesting to married women, was rendered
recently in the case Of Mrs. Ella NJ. Hough-
ton of Hudson against Ella M. Rice OF the
same place, holding that wife has no right
OF action against another woman for the
alienation OF her husbands affections, where
no adultery is alleged.
The court sustains demurrer which the
defendant filed to the plaintiffs declaration,
thereby setting aside a verdict of $lOO4l
which Middlesex jury awarded the
plaintiff.
The court says:
1--WE do not think the declaration in this
case sets forth any cause Of action at
common law. II the husband had been the
plaintiff instead Of the wife; and no
statute OF this commonwealth gives the wife
any greater right than the husband in cases
of this nature.
Tho acts charged are that the defendant
did 'ingratiate herself into the affections Of
the said William Houghton (the defendants
husband; cause him necessarily to
frequent her society; to give her various
large sums of money; to execute to her
various conveyances of property; to make
large expenditures of money on her behalf
anu 10 lIduSleT W utI. lut Sdlu uSlShu"h''
the courtesy and generosity, love and af-
fection previously bestowed by him upon
the plaintiff as his said wife
1T is then charged that by reason Of these
unlawful acts her husband ceased to have
regard, respect or affection for the plaintiff
and become cross, irritable, i'll ll-tempered
and penurious toward her, denying her
suitable support and maintenance; was guilty
of cruel and abusive treatment toward her;
that his affections for her were wholly allie
mated from her and her home and married
state broken up and destroyed; that her
husband, while living during certain months
under the same roof with her. separated him
self virtually from her, refused to live
or cohabit with her as husband and wife,
or to give her the benefit of his society,
or to perform any of the duties due from
him as her husband; but, on the contrary,
for part of the year openly and during the
rest of the year secretly. lavished his prop
erty, society, love and affection upon the
defendant.
The court says that the action is not for
criminal conversation or adultery, for that
is not charged. 1t proceeds
EAT common law also a husband can main
tain an action against one who persuaded,
procured and enticed his wife to continue
absent and apart from him, and to secret,
nlQ6 anu COHCedl ueI5ell lIO" "Hcieps
during the time she continues absent he
lost her comfort and society and her aid
and assistance in his domestic affairs
"He could also maintain an action against
one for receiving his wife and unlawfully
harboring concealing and secreting her
from him and refusing to deliver her to
him. In such cases adultery need not be
alleged 49,
The case is like that Of Lellis against Lam
bert, "a Ont. App. 653, a case very similar
to this. and when the whole subject matter
was ably considered by the court of ap-
peals.
The court says it was said in that case
that the loss of a wfe's affection not
brought about by some act on the defend
ants part, which necessarily caused or in
volved the loss of her consortium, never
gave n cause OF action to her husband
that his wife might permit an admirer to
pay her attentions, frequent her society,
visit at her home. spend his money upon
her, and by such means ALLEVIATE her af-
fections from him. resulting even in her
refusal to live with him and so far as she
could bring 1t about, in the breaking up
OF his home and yet there being no adultery
and no procuring or enticing,' or "har-
boring and secreting" OF the wife,
ton lay at the suit OF her husband against
the man, and that a wife can be in no bet
ter position to maintain an action against
a woman guilty of similar conduct toward
her husband.
The court follows this reasoning and con-
cludes that the substantive allegations OF
the plaintiffs declaration do not state
cause of action. The defendants demurrer
to the declaration is therefore sustained.
The full bench OF the supreme court also
sustained the defendants exceptions in the
case OF Ellen Neville against Olive r. Gale,
a case similar to that of Houghton against
Rice, and for the same reason. Consequently
the plaintiff loses verdict OF 81 500 awarded
to her by a Suffolk jury