
    Mudd v. Clements.
    In an action upon tie case for seduction of tie plaintiff’s daugiter, per quod servitium amisit, tie plaintiff may give evidence tiat tie defendant promised to marry the daugiter, as a means of the seduction.
    An action upon the case will lie for seduction of the plaintiff’s daughter, whereby he lost her service.
    Action upon the case for seducing the plaintiff’s daughter, whereby he lost her service. Damages laid at $2,000.
    
      Mr. Lear, for the plaintiff,
    offered to prove a promise of marriage as the means of seduction.
    The defendant’s counsel, Mr. Marbury,
    objected, and cited 2 Phillips on Ev. 159; Tullidge v. Wade, 3 Wilson, 18; Dodd v. Norris, 3 Camp. 519, and Foster v. Schofield, 1 John. Rep. 297.
   But the Coukt, {nem. con.) permitted the evidence to be given for the purpose of showing the means by which the defendant accomplished the seduction; and the defendant took a bill of exceptions. See Starkie on Ev. part 4, p. 1309, 1310; Peake’s L. E. 355; and Elliot v. Nicklin, 5 Price, 641.

The defendant’s counsel then prayed the Court to instruct the jury that this action upon the case would not lie, and that the action had been misconceived.

But the Court {nem. con.) refused, saying that they might move it in arrest of judgment, if it were a substantial objection. (See 1 Chitty, Pl. 138 ; 2 Ib. 265, 315, 271, 422; 3 Starkie on Ev. 1307, 1308, Am. Ed. note 1; Bennet v. Alcott, 2 T. R. 167; Woodward v. Walton, 2 N. R. 476; Macfadzen v. Olivant, 6 East, 387; Parker v. Elliot, Gilmer, 33, and S. C. 6 Munf. 587.)

The defendant took his second bill of exceptions.

Verdict for plaintiff $2,000. There was no motion made in arrest of judgment, nor any writ of error issued.  