Hatch v. Fuller
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for seduction. Writ dated March 2, 1880. The declaration was as follows: “ And the plaintiff says that the defendant assaulted, debauched and carnally knew one Cora Hatch, then and from thence hitherto the servant of the plaintiff, whereby the said Cora Hatch became sick and unable to render service to the plaintiff so being her master as aforesaid, and thereby the plaintiff was deprived of the services of his said servant.” Answer, a general denial.
Read the full summary
Tort for seduction. Writ dated March 2, 1880. The declaration was as follows: “ And the plaintiff says that the defendant assaulted, debauched and carnally knew one Cora Hatch, then and from thence hitherto the servant of the plaintiff, whereby the said Cora Hatch became sick and unable to render service to the plaintiff so being her master as aforesaid, and thereby the plaintiff was deprived of the services of his said servant.” Answer, a general denial. Trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows: It appeared in evidence that…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The evidence objected to was rightly admitted. The complaints of pain do not appear to have been staremems of fact or narrations of past occurrences, but only such exclamations or expressions as usually and naturally accompany, and manifest the existence of, present pain or illness. Bacon v. Charlton, 7 Cush. 581. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 102. The fact that some of these complaints were made since the date of the writ affected their weight only, and not their competency. Barber v. Merriam, 11 Allen, 322. The plaintiff was entitled to recover in this action all the damages, whether before…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. WoodIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. SnyderIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Railway Co. v. MurraySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. JohnsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1887
- Cook v. BartlettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.