The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-10-22
AL1kNATINs LoYE NOT 4 CRIME
Massachusetts Supreme Court SAYS Love 10
Not y Question of Law-Two Cases

From he bottom Herald
A decision OF the full bench OF the Supreme
Court In q novel case interesting to married
women. was rendered yesterday 10 tho case OF
Mrs Ella NJ. Houghton OF Hudson vs.. Ella NJ.
Rice OF the same place. holding that wife has
no right OF action against another women Tor
the alienation OF her husbands affections
where no adultery 10 alleged.
The Court sustains demurrer which the de-
PENDANT filed to the plaintiffs declaration.
thereby setting aside a vordict OF $40. O4l which
q Middlesex jury awarded tho plaintiff.
The Court says:
I'VE do not tn nix 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 ingrntatp herself into the affections % the
ans ns to
society; to give her various large sums OF
money; to execute to her various copyey,nces,
OF property: to make large expenditures of
the said defendant. the courtesy and gen.
By him upon The piantifY a. y bis said vile. w"
1T IS then charged that by reason OF these
gard. respect or affections for the plaintiff. and
became. cross. irritable. ill-temrered and
penurious toward her. denyinR her suitable
support and maintenance. was guilty OF cruel
affections for her wers wholly aienated from
and destroyed; that h.r husband. while living
during certain months under the same roof
her. refused to live or cohnbit with her as hus.
band and wife. or to give her tho benefit OF his
e the d""s age
for Part Of the year openly and during the re.t
society o. .s and affection upon the defend
The Court SAYS that the action is not for
not charged. II proceeds:
AT common law also husband could main
aR s
md apart from him. a. to sec,ete; hide AMI
hsrse from him T Ire. during
domestic afrairs
one, for receiving his vie and unlawftlly har-
boring. concealinR and secretnR her from him.
and refn.ine to deliver her to him In such
The cas-. Is ike that Of Lellis,vs Lambert, p
opt: ARP 0}3, a case very sim lar to ths' and
sidsred Nv the Court OF Appeals.
TIE Court ssys it vas said in that case that that
by some act on the defendants part. which
necessarily caused or involved the loss Of her
I Gsys rTss Of action to her
m rer to pay her attentions. frequent her
society. visit ct her home, spend his monay
| lions from him, resulting even 10 her refusal
| to live with him. and 40 far as she coul bring
1t about. IN the reaking up OF his home.
! procuring or enticing" or "harhoring
and secreting" OF the wife. Il . action Law at the
! suit Of the husband az in st the man: and that
| wife can he IN no better position to maintain
/ an action against woman guilty OF similar
| conduct toward her husband.
| The Court follows this reasoning. and con-
| cludes that the substantive allegations ~ the
plaintiffs declarstion do not atate cause Of
action. The defendants demurrer to tho
declaration Is. Therefore. sustained.
The full bench NJ tho Supreme Court yester-
! day also sustained the PENDANTS executions
In the case Of Ellen Neville We. Olive F. G Ie. a
case similar to TINT Of HouVhton Va. Rice, and
for the same reason. Consequently the plain
! tifr loses verdict OF 500 awarded to her BY
i a Suffolk jury.