"The jury do right," observes Wilmot, C.J., "in a case where it was proved that the seducer had made his advances under the guise of matrimony, in giving liberal damages; and if the party seduced brings another action against the defendant for the breach of promise of marriage, so much the better. If much greater damages had been given, we should not have been dissatisfied therewith, the plaintiff having received this insult in his own house, where he had civilly received the defendant, and permitted him to pay his addresses to his daughter "(e).

If, in the course of the trial, a promise of marriage is inadvertently proved, the jury must be told to exclude the injury resulting to the seduced girl from the breach of promise of marriage from their consideration, and leave it quite out of the question in determining the amount of the damages to be recovered by the father and master for the loss of service(ƒ).

1285 Evidence in mitigation of damages. The loss that the father sustains by the seduction of his daughter depends, to a very great extent, upon the value of her previous character. Prima facie, it is to be presumed that she was a moral and virtuous girl at the time of her seduction, and contributed to the domestic happiness of her parents, but it is competent to the defendant to show that this was not the case, in order to diminish the loss and reduce the damages; and if evidence is given to impeach the character of the girl, it may be met and rebutted by evidence on the part of the plaintiff of her previous good character. The defendant may call witnesses to prove particular acts of sexual intercourse between the plaintiff's daughter and those witnesses prior to the period of the seduction, either for the purpose of reducing the damages(g), or for the purpose of showing that the defendant is not the father of the child, and, therefore, that his sexual intercourse with the daughter did not occasion the loss of service of which the plaintiff complains(h). It may be shown that the seduced girl, prior to the seduction, was in the habit of keeping loose company, or of giving utter

Den. 367. Whitney v. Elmer, 60 Barb. 250. Phealing v. Kenderdine, 20 Penn. (8 Harris) 354. Foster v. Scoffield, 1 Johns. 297. Travis v. Barger, 24 Barb. 614. See Odell v. Stephens, 12 Ind. 384; Lee v. Hefley, 21 Ind. 98.

That evidence that the defendant succeeded in seducing the girl nnder and by means of a promise of marriage, may be given for the purpose of increasing damages, see White v. Campbell, 13 Gratt. (Va.) 573.

(e) Tullidge v. Wade, 3 Wils. 18.

(f) Ibid. But see Grover v. Dill, 3 Clarke (Iowa), 337.

(g) Verry v. Watkins, 7 C. & P. 308. Smith v. Milburn, 17 Iowa, 30. But see Lea v. Henderson, 1 Cold. (Tenn.) 146.

(h) Eager v. Grimwood, 1 Exch. 61; 16 Law J., Exch. 236.

ance to loose language and immodest remarks; she may be asked, for instance, whether she had not admitted that some person other than the defendant was the father of her child; but before witnesses can be called to prove the nature of the language or of the remarks, she must be pointedly and expressly asked in her cross-examination, whether she ever used the particular language or the precise remarks intended to be given in evidence against her(i).

Where the whole of the cross-examination in an action for seduction went to show that the person seduced had conducted herself immodestly and kept improper company, witnesses were allowed to be called to prove her general good character and modest deportment, and the general respectability of the family(k). But where the daughter was cross-examined to show that she had submitted herself to the defendant's embraces under circumstances of extreme indelicacy, and had been guilty of great levity of conduct, Lord Ellenborough refused to allow witnesses to be called to the general character of the daughter, saying she had ample opportunity of setting her conduct right in the course of her re-examination(). And where evidence was given on the part of the defendant to prove that the girl, previous to her acquaintance with him, had had a child by another man, Lord Ellenborough restricted the evidence tendered by the plaintiff in reply thereto to disproving the specific breach of chastity alleged by the defendant, and would not allow him to give general evidence of his daughter's good character for chastity and respectability(m).

1286 Damages recoverable in actions for inducing or persuading wives, servants, or workmen to abandon their duties or neglect the fulfilment of a contract. If a servant or contractor is induced not to perform the work or contract which he has undertaken to perform through the malicious persuasion of the defendant, damages far beyond the value of the subject-matter of the contract may be recoverable from the wrongdoer(n). The measure of damages is not to be confined to the loss of the services of the servants who were actually enticed away, but the

(i) Carpenter v. Wall, 11 Ad. & E. 803. See State v. Sutherland, 30 Iowa, 570.

In an action for seduction, the seduced cannot be asked on cross-examination whether she had connection with other men, either for the purpose of showing her bad character, or for the purpose of contradicting her if she deny it. Hoffman v. Kemerer, 44 Penn. St. 452. Shattuck v. Myers, 13 Ind. 46. Doyle v. Jessup, 29 Ill. 460. Reed v. Williams, 5 Sneed (Tenn.), 580.

(k) Bate v. Hill, 1 C. & P. 100. State v. Shean, 32 Iowa, 88. See McAulay v. Birkhead, 13 Ired. 28.

(1) Dodd v. Norris, 3 Campb. 518.

(m) Bamfield v. Massey, 1 Campb. 460.

(n) Crompton, J., Lumley v. Gye, 2 El. & Bl. 230; 22 Law J., Q. B. 463.

jury are justified in giving ample compensation for all the damage resulting from the wrongful act(0). Where the plaintiff alleged that his wife left him and lived apart from him, during which time a con siderable fortune was left to her separate use, and that, she being willing to return to the plaintiff, the defendant unlawfully persuaded her to continue to live away from the plaintiff, whereby he lost the assistance of his wife in his domestic affairs and the advantage of her fortune, 30007. damages were recovered for the wrong done(p): 1287 Indictment for the abduction of unmarried girls.-Whoever unlawfully takes, or causes to be taken, any unmarried girl, being under the age of sixteen years, out of the possession, and against the will, of her father or mother, or of any other person having the lawful care or charge of her, may be indicted and convicted of a misdemeanor(2). And whoever fraudulently allures, takes away, or detains any woman under the age of twenty-one years, who has any interest in any real or personal estate, or is presumptive heiress, or co-heiress, or next of kin, etc., to any one having such interest, out of the possession, and against the will, of her father or mother, or other person having the lawful care or charge of her, with intent to marry or carnally know her, or to cause her to be married or carnally known by any other person, may be indicted for felony; and, if convicted, he is incapable of taking any estate or interest in any property of the woman, or in which she shall have any interest, or which may come to her as heiress, co-heiress, or next of kin, etc.(r). The taking and detaining, from motives of lucre, of any woman over twenty-one, who is entitled to any real or personal estate, etc., against her will, with intent to marry or carnally know her, subjects the wrong-doer to a similar punishment and disability(s).

(0) Guntor v. Astor, 4 Moor, 15. Dubois v. Allen, Anthon, 94.

(p) Winsmore v. Greenbank, Willes, 580.

(g) 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 55. Reg. v. Timmins, 30 Law J., M. C. 45. Reg. v. Manktelow, 22 ib. 115.

(r) 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 53.

(8) Ibid.

CHAPTER XX.

OF ACTIONS EX DELICTO-PARTIES THERETO-NON-JOINDER AND MIS-JOINDER OF PARTIES.

SECTION I.-Parties to be made plaintiffs in actions ex delicto.—Parties to be made plaintiffs in actions of tort founded on contract—Remedies of tenants in common and joint tenants against each other-Rights of the survivorTrustee and cestui que trust-Bailees of goods-Master and servant-Husband and wife-Actions by married women after a judicial separation, or an order for protection-Actions by infants, heirs-at-law, devisees, and personal representatives - Actions by administrators and trustees of bankrupts — Number of the plaintiffs--Joint and separate rights of action. SECTION II.-Parties to be made defendants in actions ex delicto.-Tenants in common, corporate bodies, public boards, joint-stock companies, trustees and commissioners, public officers, master and servant, principal and agent -Subsequent ratification and adoption of a wrongful act-Servants and agents-Husband and wife-Infants-Executors or administrators-Trustees in bankruptcy-Liability of a bankrupt after his bankruptcy-Number of the defendants.

SECTION III. Of the non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties.-Amendment before and at the trial-Misjoinder of defendants in actions of tort founded on contract--Plea in abatement for non-joinder-Amendment.

SECTION I.

OF ACTIONS EX DELICTO AND THE PARTIES TO BE MADE PLAINTIFFS IN SUCH ACTIONS(a).

1288 Parties to be made plaintiff's in actions of tort founded on contract.— Where a contract creates a duty, the neglect to perform that duty, as well as the negligent performance of it, is a ground of action for a tort. Both the non-feazance and the mis-feazance constitute a wrong

(a) Parties to be made plaintiffs in particular actions have already been considered under their appropriate heads. See Index in voce.