The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1910-02-07

only vehicle by which they coufc
drive those six miles, all 60 together
and carry the luggage. and there was
spring seat Now, I am sure that
none Of you gentlemen voted for that
verdict on that ground, because / viii
venture TO say, although I don't know
the fact-I will venture to say some
OF you have driven to town in a lum-
Der wagon with spring seats and had
your wife and family with you.
3 Lack Of Sleep no Crime.
Take the sleeper incident; going 70
Minneapolis without a sleeper. Well
now. 1T 1t had been ]. under those cir
cumstances / should have wanted a
sleeper. l am very sure that IL II had
been my wife, I should have been in
sistent upon her having a sleeper, but
am equally certain my wife would
have refused 1t. / speak OF that only
incidentally because / know she
doesn't like to ride In a sleeper with
children, l. that manner and espe-
cially on a hot night. am just simp-
ly touching common experiences that
we find every place, my experience
and your experience, the common ex-
periences of mankind that you find in
that line. Could you say that that
was an evidence that the defendants
In this action were alternating the af-
fections Of the Observation-Disclosures we
cannot get away from what the uues-
ton for decision is? Suppose he did
wrong-who was II that did the
wrong? Why, 1t was the husband Is
there any evidence that the father-ir-
law or the mother in-law, and they
are charged jointly--that they caused
the husband Of this woman to prevent
her from riding to Minneapolis in a
sleeper?
Take the incident of the sickness.
and now we come, / think, to the
point which probably caused you,
gentlemen of the Jury, finally to bring
this verdict. What is the graviment
OF that charge? What Is it's length
and Its breadth? Put in it's worst
form, 1t is this. That the parents did
not give her proper care when che
was sick and when she needed it.
Now, gentlemen of the jury, there
was absolutely no legal obligation up
on them to give that care; However
much, morally speaking they ought to
have stood by her bedside every mo-
ment, yet that isn't the question for
us to determine in this lawsuit. The
question is: Was there any legal OBJ
legation upon those people to do
everything which she said they did not
do? You will understand / am talk
ing about this in the most favorable
| light to the plaintiff. What she has
said has been disputed and denied, and
they are not the friends incarnate
which the testimony of the plaintiff
would seem to indicate, according to
the other testimony, but / do not pass
upon tina. I take the testimony
as she gives it, because upon
this motion am bound to do
that and see what legal effect, what
force 1T may have in a matter of this
description. What do / find find
they are simply criticised for not do
ing certain things. Let us test for a
moment-suppose you drop out this
alienation of affection charge-and see
if a suit brought against them for
not giving proper care and attention
| has been brought-how long would
that stand in court. The court would
have to say, Gentlemen, they are
not legally liable and you must so
find" Now, they have proven a fact
here which raises no legal liability up
on the part OF these defendants. What
presumption can follow from that?
Here are persons that simply don't
do what they ought to do. Suppose
you would go along the street and
would find a man suffering intensely,
lying on the sidewalk, and like the
old Samaritan you would so by on
the other side. Why, the instincts Of
humanity would suggest thar you pass
over and help that person, but IL you
do not, can that person bring an action
against you for damages? No. And is
there any presumption of law thar in
wolves your intent by reason Of your
not doing IL? You may have had
dozens reasons for not doing IL. And
so / might go on, but think have
gone far enough in the analysis of
this testimony to show, first, that
there is no evidence that the affections
of these parties have been aIienated.
| II we believe what they say upon the
witness stand to be true, both of them,
they ought to be In each others arms
at this moment because they have
testified that they love each other as
much as ever they did--and why are
they not?
| What is the law OF the case? on
page six Of the courts charge I called
your attention especially to the rela-
ton of parent and child. the recipro-
cal obligations which last throughout
life, and how under tho law-the con-
coded law, conceded In this action, If
you please, by both parties. that this
obligation is of such q nature that
even though the parent erred in some
Of his acts. yet II they were done in
good faith there could be no action
brought, even though those actions
were performed, and something oc-
CURED, which didn't, under the evil
dence in this case, namely, that the af-
lection was removed. yet no right of
action could be had. This is not a
case like what happens when some
third person comes into the home,
rends 1t in twain, and an action is
brought very different kind of an
action. Why, If 1t Is possible that in
courts of justice parents can be COM
PEELED to respond in damages for
every bit of advice which they give to
their children, where would man be
when he is advising his daughter, if
you please, (because the law Is the
same for advise given to either son
or daughter) against a man who has
betrayed her and been unfaithfu! to
his marriage vows; when 1t is neces-
sary for the protection, the comfort
and repose of mans daughter that
| he step in. as he ought to do, and adj
vises her not to live any more with
such brute? Must he respond in
1 a A