Norton v. Warner
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action for criminal conversation with the plaintiff’s wife; tried at Hartford, February term, 1832, before Williams, J. On the trial, the defendant offered testimony to prove, in mitigation of damages, that for a long time past, the plaintiff had been in habits of beastly intoxication, and sustained the character of a common drunkard.
Read the full summary
This was an action for criminal conversation with the plaintiff’s wife; tried at Hartford, February term, 1832, before Williams, J. On the trial, the defendant offered testimony to prove, in mitigation of damages, that for a long time past, the plaintiff had been in habits of beastly intoxication, and sustained the character of a common drunkard. This being objected to, by the plaintiff, the judge, considering the character of the plaintiff as not in issue, rejected such testimony; but ruled, that evidence of unkind treatment of his wife, produced by drunkenness or otherwise, was admissible.…
1Opinion of the Court
Peters,!.
The object of the plaintiff in this suit was, to recover damages for an injury to his marital rights. Any testimony 'which tended to shew, tiiat tie had sustained no injury, was admissible; such as connivance at her wantonness or suffering her to prostitute herself; for it is a maxim of law, that volenti non fit injuria. So turning her out of doors, or associating with lewd women, shews clearly, that her society was of no value to him. But all evidence of this sort was admitted, by the judge. Duberley v. Gunning, 4 Term Rep. 651.
It is a well settled rule, that evidence in civil suits…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hotchkiss v. PlunkettSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1891
- Sumner v. MarcyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1847