Case Name: Chase against Hale
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1811-10
Citations: 8 Johns. 461
Docket Number: 
Parties: Chase against Hale.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 461–462

Head Matter:
Chase against Hale.
peace has cogactio n of trespass “Utio^ng ” a/ay tt'e.'wi.í§ of tlie A ítiRtíftft nf thf»
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court.
Hale brought an action of trespass on the case against Chase, for enticing away the wife of Hale. The defendant pleaded the general issue. It was proved, by two witnesses, that Chase said, “ that as people talked so much about him and Hale’s wife, and as Hale had become jealous of hipi, he intended to plague and torture him in that way, as much as he could.” It was also proved that Chase had been seen, a great number of times with Hale’s wife, at different places, from her house, and under suspicious circumstances: and also, that the plaintiff had been frequently seen at the defendant’s house. The justice gave judgment for the plaintiff, for 15 dollars and 84 cents damages.
On the return to the certiorari, the objections were,
1. That the justice had no jurisdiction.
2. That the testimony did not support the charge alleged in the declaration.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Neither of the objections taken- to the return of the justice, are tenable. The action is trespass on the case, jurisdiction of which action is expressly given to justices of the peace: and the proviso in the statute, taking away their jurisdiction in certain actions, does not extend to actions like the present. The testimony fully supported the declaration, without adopting the rigid rule of the old law, which was so strict on this point, that if one man's wife missed her way on the road, it was not lawful for another man to take her into his house, unless she was benighted, and in danger of being lost or drowned. The evidence, was probably sufficient to support an action of another description- ; but the plaintiff was not bound to pursue it» The plaintiff's wife was proved to have been repeatedly absent from his house, and in company with the defendant at his house, and in other places, under circumstances that could leave no doubt of her being enticed or persuaded away by the defendant.
The judgment below must be affirmed.