Claim against auctioneers

for recovery

of the de

posit.

was entered into between the plaintiff and C. J. L., whereby the said C. J. L. agreed to sell to the plaintiff the Duke of York public-house, Road, in consideration of the sum of £50 then paid by the plaintiff as a deposit into the hands of the defendants, and of a further sum of £2000 to be paid by the plaintiff to the said C. J. L.

4. By the said agreement it was provided that the said sale should be completed by the said C. J. L. by the 25th October, 1876, and that the said C. J. L. would do all necessary acts for duly transferring the licence and magistrate's certificate to the plaintiff.

5. The said C. J. L., as the defendants well knew, wholly failed to complete the said assignment aforesaid, or to do all necessary acts for transferring the licence or magistrate's certificate to the plaintiff as aforesaid, and has wholly neglected and failed to do so, and has refused and become incapacitated from so doing.

6. The consideration for the said agreement and said deposit aforesaid wholly failed.

7. The plaintiff thereupon, as he lawfully might do, demanded of the defendants the said deposit of £50 aforesaid; yet the defendants have wrongfully refused and still refuse to hand over or refund the same.

The plaintiff claims as follows:

(1.) £50 aforesaid.

(2.) Interest upon the said sum at £5 per cent. from the date the same became due until final judgment.

Claim for seduction.

Loss of

services the foundation of the

action of seduction.

Seduction (a).

Action for Seduction of Plaintiff's Daughter.

1. The plaintiff is a farmer residing in the village of -, in the county of. The defendant is a young man of independant means residing in the same village.

(a) The plaintiff in an action for seduction is never the woman who has been seduced; but someone between whom and herself there existed in the eye of the law, at the time of the seduction, the relation of master and servant. A right of action is given to such a person merely on the ground that, as a consequence of illness resulting from the seduction, he has lost

2. Before, at the time of and since the seduction herein- Claim for after mentioned, Jane P., the daughter of the plaintiff's wife, lived with the plaintiff and his said wife, and was treated by

seduction.

for a time the services of the woman. It is laid down in some books that there must be actual pregnancy, if not the birth of a child, consequent on Quære, Is the seduction, before an action will lie. But it is submitted that this is actual not so, and that any kind of illness which is immediately produced by pregnancy the seduction, and which is sufficient, even temporarily, to deprive the essential to master of the services of the woman, is enough; and there is for this the action? proposition the authority of the case of Manvill v. Thomson, 2 C. & P. 303, where the plaintiff recovered £400 damages, although the woman did not become pregnant. The illness relied upon in this case was that the woman" continued sometime in a state of great agitation, and received medical attendance, and was obliged to be watched lest she should do herself some injury."

There are therefore at least three essential ingredients in an action Material of seduction: 1. The relationship of master and servant between the averments plaintiff and the woman seduced. 2. The seduction of the woman, in the while in the plaintiff's service, by the defendant. 3. Her subsequent claim. illness, and loss of service and damage to the plaintiff; and it is necessary that averments disclosing all these facts should appear on the face of the statement of claim. It will be seen therefore that the law gives neither to the woman nor to the parent any remedy where there has been seduction not followed by pregnancy or illness; and even in cases where pregnancy or illness is joined to the seduction, there may be no remedy if the woman at the time is residing away from the house of her parents, and the person in whose service she is refuses to bring an action. Suppose that her seducer is her master. In such a case there would be no action. The girl could not bring it; Cases the father is in the same position, because she is not in his service; where and the master cannot and would not bring an action against him- there is no self. Even if in the case supposed, as a consequence of the seduc- remedy for tion, the girl is thrown ill upon her father's hands, and he expends a seduction large sums of money in attending to her and the child, still he followed by would have no right of action. (Grinnell v. Wells, 7 M. & G. 1033.) illness. In such a case, however, it has been held that if it could be proved that the service was not bonâ fide, but a mere device or contrivance to get possession of the person of the woman, then the father would have an action on the ground that she remained in his service. (Speight v. Oliviera, 2 Stark. 495.) Another case in which there would be no remedy for a seduction, joined with subsequent pregnancy and illness, is the following. Suppose a woman in the service of her father or one master at the time of the seduction, and in the service of another master at the time of the pregnancy and illness, no action would lie by either master or the father. The father or first master could not sue, because there was no illness while in his service, and no loss of service. The second master cannot sue, because she was not seduced while in his service. (Davies v. Williams, 10 Q. B. 725.)

entitle a parent

To entitle a father to sue in this action for the loss of his daugh- What is ter's services, it is not necessary to show any contract of service evidence of between them. (Ecans v. Walton, L. R. 2 C. P. 615.) It is sufficient service to that the woman is not bound to give her services to anybody else, and that living with him or only temporarily absent, he can at any moment command her services. If the father is dead, the mother or any other person who stands in loco parentis to the woman seduced has his rights.

to sue.

There is one important difference between the case of Difference

Claim for seduction.

Statement

of defence.

in measure of damages in actions by master and father.

Defences to

actions for seduction.

him as his daughter, and rendered habitual services to the plaintiff in managing a dairy and in other household work and otherwise as the plaintiff's servant.

3. In the early part of the year 1875 the defendant seduced the said Jane P., whereby she became pregnant, and was on the 24th of November, 1875, delivered of a child.

4. In consequence of such seduction the said Jane P. was both before and after her confinement sick and ill, and the plaintiff lost her services for a long time, and also those of her mother who attended to her in part, and also incurred expense for nursing and medical attendance during her said illness and at the time of the delivery of the said child.

The plaintiff claims £300 damages.

Statement of Defence.

1. The defendant does not admit the allegation as to his means in the 1st paragraph of the statement of claim.

2. The defendant denies that he seduced the said Jane P. as alleged in the 3rd paragraph of the statement of claim, or at all.

3. The said Jane P. was not in the plaintiff's service at the times mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the statement of claim.

4. The defendant does not admit the 4th paragraph of the statement of claim.

a parent suing for the loss of a daughter's services, and a mere master suing. The measure of damages awarded to the latter is the bare money loss suffered; but in addition to this, a jury may award to a parent damages for the distress of mind endured, and the dishonour and disgrace cast upon the family. (Bedford v. McKowl, 3 Esp. 120.)

The defences that a defendant may set up to this action have already been indicated. He may (1) deny that the plaintiff was the master of the woman at the time of the seduction; (2) deny the seduction altogether; (3) admitting or denying the fact of seduction, deny that any pregnancy or illness, followed by loss of service, resulted while in plaintiff's service. He may also plead the Statute of Limitation where six years have elapsed since the alleged loss of service; and it would seem that where the seduction has been brought about or contributed to by the misconduct of the plaintiff in encouraging improper intimacies, or by gross neglect of parental duties, a plea to that effect will be a good answer. (Reddie v. Scoolt, Peake, 316.) Referring to this last decision, it is remarked in a work of high authority, "It may well be doubted whether this was not rather matter in reduction of damages." (Roscoe's Nisi Prius, 13th edition, 880.)

Another Claim for Seduction.

1. The plaintiff is a married woman living apart from her Claim for husband, and has obtained an order from Master K. to com

mence this action in her own name. lately carried on the business of a

She resides at

and is an auctioneer.

and

2. The defendant resides at 3. In or about the month of, 1876, the defendant debauched and carnally knew Mary Ann C., the daughter of the said plaintiff, and then being her assistant in the business aforesaid, whereby the said Mary Ann C. became pregnant with child.

4. In consequence of the premises the plaintiff lost the services of the said Mary Ann C. for a long time, and incurred expense in nursing and taking care of her and about the delivery of the said child.

The plaintiff claims :

seduction.

Shares.

See Stock-Stockbroker.

Sheriff.

Action against Sheriff for illegal Seizure and Sale.

the alter

against a illegal

sheriff for

1. The plaintiff H. C. B. is the receiver appointed by the Claim by late High Court of Chancery in a suit of Harris and Others plaintiffs in v. B., by an order of Vice-Chancellor Bacon dated the native 27th February, 1875, "to take possession of the L. Mines Colliery and business in the bill in the said suit mentioned, being certain mines situate at Leycett, in the county of Staf ford, and the colliery and business there carried on, and to manage the same with a view to the sale thereof as a going concern."

2. The other three plaintiffs are the executors of the last will of P. Harris, deceased, hereinafter called the testator, who died on the 25th September, 1874, and whose said will dated the 16th April, 1872, was duly proved by the said executors on the 24th December, 1874.

seizure.

Claim by

the alter

3. The defendant J. B. is and was at the time of the tres

plaintiffs in passes and grievances hereinafter mentioned, the High Sheriff for the county of S.; the defendants the Crewe Coal Co. are, &c. 4. Immediately after his said appointment the plaintiff H. C. B., as such receiver as aforesaid, took and has ever since retained possession of the said mines, colliery, and business, and of the plant and machinery thereon and connected therewith.

native against a sheriff for illegal seizure.

5. The testator was at the time of his death as aforesaid equitable mortgagee of the said L. Mines and Colliery, and also owner of the said plant and machinery under and by virtue of a written agreement dated the 11th July, 1872, between the testator and one E. B., and by virtue of the deposit with the testator to secure certain advances made by him of a written agreement dated the 27th May, 1872, between the defendants the Crewe Coal and Iron Co. Limited and the said E. B.

6. On or about the 3rd December, 1875, the defendant J. B., by his officer, under colour of a writ of fi. fa. issued by the defendants, the Crewe Coal and Iron Co. Limited, on a judgment signed in an action by them against the said E. B., broke and entered the said colliery and wrongfully seized the machinery and plant thereat, consisting of two engines with boilers and engines, 20,000 bricks forming the brickwork in which the engines, boilers, and machinery were fixed, and certain woodwork and other effects, and on or about the 7th December, 1875, caused the same to be sold by auction and removed from the said colliery and converted the proceeds thereof to his own use.

7. The plaintiffs say that in making the said seizure and sale the defendant J. B. acted under the special direction of the defendants, the Crewe Coal and Iron Co., who had notice that the property seized belonged to the plaintiffs or one or other of them.

8. By means of the said trespasses and grievances the said colliery was wrecked, and its value as a going concern ruined.

9. The plaintiffs allege in the alternative that the possession of the said property and the right to sue for damages for the said trespasses and grievances resides in the plaintiff H. C. B., as such receiver as aforesaid, or in the other three plaintiffs, or in all the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs claim £5000 damages.