Classified_ad

The case of Frank Duncan against liis father-in-Iaw Win. 1'. (troves, for alienating the affections of lus wife, occupieil much of the time of the court last week, and tlie verdict of tlie jury, "No "cause for action," was eonsidered right by the people generally. ïlie charge to the jury delivered by Judge Kinne in tliis case is so clear in reasoning, and so decided upon certain points iuvolved, that we believe our readers will thank us for publishing it entire : "Tliis is a suit brought by Frank Duncan against Wm. P. Groves, liis fatherin-Iaw, to recover damages foran alleged alienation of the affections of his wife, Flora Dnncan. Actions or suits of this nature are quite common, where one man lias enticed away the wife of another, and where for his own use and benefit, and usually for the gratification of his lust, he lias estranged and alienated the afl'ections of the wife from her busbond. Now in all such cases the motive of the wrong-doer is plain and evident ; liis conduct is sinful and unlawful, and tlie law is ready to administer and enforce his punishment. The case now before you is notof that nature, but is rather a remarkable case and with Somewhat unusual features. The :lisputed evidence in this case shows that Mr. Duncau himself was a wrongioer, that he repeatedly admitted the fact to his wife and his friends, that he promised his wife if she would forgive him and continue to live with hitn, he would reform and live a sober life ; that she took him back and tried hiin and bore with his failings until she could endure it uo longer, and that finally, in November, 1896, she filed her bill for divorce against her husband on the ground of his misoouduct in the excessive use of intoxicating liquors; that in March of this year, she obtained her decree of divorce frotn Mr. Duncan, on the ground of his misconduct; that he made no defence to her action for divorce, and that she was granted a divorce and separation from Mr. Duncan because the laws of this state entitled her to a divorce under sucli circumstances. You are now asked by Mr. Duncau to find from the evideuce in this cause that not he, but bis father-in-law, was the cause of this separation. Observation and experience teacli us all, that it is among the human frailties to often attempt to lay at the door of another, the origin and cause of our own wrong doings and misconduct. It is for you to determine from the evidence in this cause, wliere the real fault lies, and who is the culpable wrong-doer in this domeslic misfortune. "So far as the evidence in this case goes, this marriage, wlien it was celebrated, was agreeable to all parties coucerneil, and occurred at the residence of the defendant, Win, P. Groves. "Now, gentlemen, before you fine that this father-in-law separated these people, it Will be incumbent upon you to discover, if you can, what motive could have inspired him to the commission of this act, to separate these people The gist of this action, tbat is, the theory of it, is that the plaintiff bas lost the comfort, friendship, society and affectiou of his wife, by reason of the Ilegal conduct of the defendant, or bis misconduct. Unless this separation can be brougbt home to the defendant by competent, tangible and satisfactory prooi, the plaintiff cannot recover. If this separation between husband and wife was dueto the habite or misconduct of Air. Duncan, that is the end of this case and your verdict should be for the defendant. "In order for the plaintiff to recover iti this action you must be satisfied from the evidence that tliis ehange in her feélings tovvard her husband, and her separation and divorce from him, are due, either to the compulsión of her father, or to his active interference and solicitation ; and unless the proof satislies you that the father was guilty, either of compulsión or ac-tive interfer(Continued on 4th Page.) A SPLENDID CHARGE, (Continued from lst page.) ice and solicitation, the plaintill' canuot scovér. "Nove, gentlemen, tliis is not a matter o be detennined upon mere suspicion r guess-work, or possibilities, or mere eculation; and before the father can be called upon to respond ín damages to tilia plaintiíi', there must be proof that he has been guilty of some miscóTiduct ; it must be established by the evidence that tliis defendant, 3Jr. Groves, has uujustly and maliciously persuaded and prooured his daughter to lose her affection for her husband and abandon him. It must appear that the defendant has sought to prejüdice his daughter against her husband and by persuasión and solicitation has tried to iufluence her against him. Not only must it appear that he is the cause of this alienation, but you must be satisfied from the evidence that this conduct has been inspired by malice and improper motives. Unless tíie defendant lias beengoverued by ill-wiü towauls the plaintiíi', or prompted by improper motives, there can be no recovery against him. "Ií you believe the story of Mrs. Duiican, that her father in no respect at any time or place, iniiuenced her against her husband; that he was cautious and reserved in his judgment and advice to her; if you believe her story that slie lived with lier husband as long as she feit she safely could ; that she lived with him until she was compelled to abandon all faitb in him and bis promises of reformatiou, and linally left him, solely because she was unwilling to spend the remaiuder of herlife with a man addicted to the excessive use of intoxicating spirits ; if you find these to be the facto and such to be the cause of her estraugement and separation, then this lavvsuit against this defendant is but an insult added to his injuries, and the defendant is entitled to your verdict. "Wheu a daughter is inariied, the control over her by the pareuts ceases, and her parents have no right therealter either to govern her or to interfere between her and her husband and thus promote domestic trouble and discord. If the father makes this mistake and does interfere, either maliciously or from improper motives, he is Hable for the cons'equences. If his conduct is prompted by ill-wiU towards lier jand, or is done to subserve some selish purpose on his part, he must be leid responsibie for the result; but it nust be remembered tliat the important oint of inquiry is the intent with vrhicb he deiendaut acted. lf, through hate or ill-will, or for some seltisli or impropr motive, the defendant sought to esrange the wife of the plaiutifl', Jie would ender himself liable; but if he acted in good faith and trom proper and rational uutives, ii he sought to assist her, if he iled to assist his daughter and rescue ïer froin a life of sorrow, shame, and ciuelty, he did nothing but what the aw juatifles. The lavv is reasonable and ounded upon conimou sense. Wlieu a girl is married, slie does notcease to be i daughter, nor thereby lose or bury ler father. The father's house is alwa ,s openjto his children, and whether they e married or unmarried, it is still to them a rel'uge frota evil and a cousolation in distress. The affectiou of the daughter for her father and of the father owards his daugliter may and sliould reiuain unabated. Jt would be a strange and unnatural father, whose iuterests and affection for his daughter should end at the marriage ceremony. The law recognizes no such folly or absurdity. The affection of an ordinary father and his deep interest in his daugliter will naturally follow her, if dutiful, through all her journeyings iu life, in adversity as vvell as prosperity, even to her grave. The father may therefore lawfully give honest advice to his married daughter who comes to liim in trouble and distress, growing out of unliappy marital relations, and he may even shelter her iu his own home as long as she voluutarily remains. The laet inai ne is iier lamer uoes uoi ioroiu ;hat h'e should do to lus daughter acts of prdinary humanity. lf a wife is ill used by her husbaud, if be lias become addicted to the excessive use of intoxicating liquors, and for these reasons the wife had a good reason for separation and divorce, if she reaches the conclusión that she can no longer in peace and comfort and safety live with lier hustand, and wishes a divorce, she has the undoubted right to go to her father for Uis advice and his protection; and if he gives her his advice in good faith and accords her his protection from honest motives and a sense of humanity, he is doing nothing but what good moráis, the interest of humanity and the well established principies of íaw fully justify. "Now, gentlemen, if irom the evidence in this cause you find that this father-in-law and not Mr. Duncan caused the alieuation and separation of Flora Duncan from her busband, then the plaintiffis entitled to your verdict and if he is entitled to your verdict, ie is entitled to such compensation, or such damages, as will reasonably and fairly compénsate hini for the wrongs and injuries that he has received at the hands of the defendant. 13nt on the other hand if the evidence in this cause establishes the fact, if it satisfies you, that Mr. Duncan himself is respousible for all the misfortunes which have overtaken him, that his own failingg and shorteomings caused the alienation and separation of his wife, then your verdict should be for the defendant. "In tliis as in all other cases you should be governed by the evideuce submitted. An attempt on the part of the plaintiff was repeatedly made, as you mayfjremember, to cali out the tact that the plaintiff was poor and had lost his property. Such testimony, gentlemen, is foreign (o any issue fiere submittedtoyou. Ifinthe hTstory of the civilization of this nation we have reached a point, where the poverty of the plaintifF or the wealth of the defendant, is to be regarded as a test of the right to recover in legal proceediugs ; if we have reached such a crisis in our affairs that such a fact is to control the verdict of a jury, then it is time that the walls of this court house should be thrown down, and men who are possessed of property, should find their only sure defense, in the shot gun and the bayonet. But, iientlemen of the jury, that is not the state of our society. All men, rich or poor, are equal before tlio law, and I believe the rights of all pavties can be snfply entrusted to a jury of their fellow men. "Tlie tpstimony in this cause indicates thftt but for this unfortunate habit of drinking, tb e plaintiff in this cause would lie a kind husband and a kind father, a prosperous man and a good oitizen. The sympathies of all good men should tro oht to hïm, and if he has been wrongcd, bis rigbts should be respected and redressed, but unless you find from the evidence in this cause tliat the defendarit Wm. P. Groves bas unjustlv or inalieiously separated these partios and alienated the aftections of Flora Duncan, under your oatlis you have nu more right to render a verdict against this defendant than to spoliate tiie treasury of-this state." -