Akerley v. Haines
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of trespass for debauching and getting with child, Elizabeth, the daughter and servant of the plaintiff, by which he lost her service, was forced to expend a large sum of money in her lying in, and had, with all his family, fallen into disrepute.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass for debauching and getting with child, Elizabeth, the daughter and servant of the plaintiff, by which he lost her service, was forced to expend a large sum of money in her lying in, and had, with all his family, fallen into disrepute. In support of the action the daughter herself, against whose admissibility no objection was made, testified to the facts, after which the counsel for her father acknowledged that the money recovered in this suit was intended for her benefit, and there rested his case. Against it the defendant attempted to prove that the daughter…
1Per curiam
The direction of the judge was right. The daughter not being virtuous is no reason why her father, unless he connived at, and knew of her criminal intercourse, should not recover for the injury done to him, by the loss of her service and the expenses of her confinement. These are the grounds of this action.(a) On the other point, which is made, that the verdict is against evidence, we can form no opinion. The case is so drawn as not to disclose either the number, character, „or particular testimony of the witnesses.
The jury, therefore, for aught we can know, were right in disbelieving the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Patterson v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1862
- Fletcher v. RandallNew York Supreme Court · 1807
- Keplinger v. SherrickOhio Supreme Court · 1832
- Richardson v. FoutsIndiana Supreme Court · 1859
- Vanhorn v. FreemanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1796