
    Akerley against Haines.
    In trespass quaire clausum, by a father, for debauching and getting his daughter with child, per quod, &c., the grounds of the action are the loss of service, and expenses of lying in: it is therefore no defence to show ths daughter to be unchaste, unless the father has connived at her criminal intercourse.
    This was an action of trespass for debauching and getting with child, Elizabeth, the daughter and servant of the plaintiff, by which he lost her service, was forced to expend a large sum of money in her lying in, and had, with all his family, fallen into disrepute.
    In support of the action the daughter herself, against whose admissibility no objection was made, testified to the facts, after which the counsel for her father acknowledged that the money recovered in this suit was intended for her benefit, and there rested his case.
    Against it the defendant attempted to prove that the daughter was a woman of unchaste character; but the credibility of the witnesses to this point was opposed by counter evidence on the part of the plaintiff. The counsel, however, against him, insisted that if the daughter was of bad reputation, antecedently to the defendant’s connexion with her, the present action could not be maintained. The judge, before whom the cause was tried, thought otherwise, and charged the jury, that though they might believe in the previous want of chastity, they ought, nevertheless, to find a verdict for the plaintiff, but assess damages only for the loss of service and expense of lying in, and nothing for the loss of reputation. He could not, he said, see why a man who had the misfortune of having an unchaste child, should not be recompensed for an injury of this kind. He suffered as much by the loss of her service, and paid as much for her confinement, on her lying in, as if she had Deen virtuous and of fair character.
    The jury, upon this, found in favor of the plaintiff two hundred dollars. Application was now made to set aside the verdict, for the misdirection of the judge, and as being contrary to evidence.
    
      Mnott, for the defendant.
    The verdict is, evidently, not founded on the evidence. The action is trespass quare clausum, and it ought to have been shown that it was committed within the house. The testimony proved a former unchastity; and as the plaintiff waived damages, on his own account, it ^became a question purely between the daughter and the defendant. Under this point of view, there can be no hesitation in saying the damages were excessive.
    
      Caines, contra,
    was stopped by the court.
   Per Curiam.

The direction of the judge was right. The daughter not being virtuous is no reason why her father, unless he connived at, and knew of her criminal intercourse, should not recover for the injury done to him, by the loss of her service and the expenses of her confinement. These are the grounds of this action. On the other point, which is made, that the verdict is against evidence, we can form no opinion. The case is so drawn as not to disclose either the number, character, „or particular testimony of the witnesses.

The jury, therefore, for aught we can know, were right in disbelieving the witnesses examined by the defendant, as to the daughter’s character. If so, the damages are not too high. Let nothing be taken by the motion.

New trial refused. 
      
       See Seagar v. Sligerland, ante, 220, n.(a.)
     