Sheehey v. Cokley
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Mahaska District Oowrt. Plaintiff alleges that she is, and in the month of January, 1873, was a married woman, and that at that time the defendant, in the presence and hearing of the father and brother of plaintiff, and of three other persons, called ' her a whore. Damages are claimed in the sum of ten thousand dollars.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Mahaska District Oowrt. Plaintiff alleges that she is, and in the month of January, 1873, was a married woman, and that at that time the defendant, in the presence and hearing of the father and brother of plaintiff, and of three other persons, called ' her a whore. Damages are claimed in the sum of ten thousand dollars. The answer denies all the allegations of the petition, and by way of mitigation alleges'that he was attacked byjhe father and brothers of plaintiff, and made whatever statements he did make while excited and angry. The defendant filed an amended answer admitting…
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
I. The plaintiff proved the speaking of the words alleged. Upon the part of the defendant it was proved that plaintiff was married on the 28th day of October, 1871, and that she was delivered of a child on the 8th day of April, 1872. It was also proved that she had sexual intercourse with Edward Sheehey on the 18th day of October, 1871. There was also evidence tending to show that plaintiff made an indecent exposure of her person, and otherwise conducted herself in a licentious manner.
Plaintiff in rebuttal testified that, at the time she had sexual intercourse with Edward Sheehey, they were…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Houghtaling v. . KilderhouseNew York Court of Appeals · 1848
3Cited by6 opinions
- Wallace v. Homestead Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Davis v. SladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1889
- Rutherford v. PaddockMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- Johnson v. WhippleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- State v. GustinOregon Supreme Court · 1966
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.