
    WALLACE vs. CLARK.
    Jonesborough,
    
    
      March 1807.
    
    James Wallace by his attorney complains of Wm. Clark Jr. in custody &c. of a plea of trespass with force and arms, and strong hand, for breaking and entering said plaintiff's house and debauching his daughter Jane Wallace, and getting her with child, to his damage &c. for this that whereas, the said Clark on the 20th day of December 1805, and at divers other days and times between that day and the 4th day of February 1806, then next ensuing, with force and arms, to wit, with swords, staves, and other offensive weapons in the county of ——— made assault on Jane Wallace Spinster, the daughter and then servant of said James, and beat, wounded, and evil treated her, & debauched her, and carnally knew her, and got her with child, whereby the said James lost the comfort and service of his said daughter and servant for a long time, during all the time aforesaid, and was forced to be at great labor and trouble, and to lay out a large sum of money, to wit, $200 in maintaining her and taking care of her in the lying in of the said child, and also upon the several days aforesaid, with force and arms &c. and also upon the several days aforesaid broke and entered the dwelling house of said James and greatly disturbed him in his quiet possession and enjoyment thereof, and did him other injuries, and against the peace of the state, to the damage of the said plaintiff $1000 and therefore he brings suit, and these are pledges to prosecute.
    
      In an action by father for debauched daughter, her general character cannot be proved. Not material whether child was got at her father's or elsewhere.
    
      
      Plea not guilty, and issue.
    
    
      White & Williams, for the plaintiff.
    We have proven that this young woman was resident at her farther’s house, assisting the family and that she lay in, there.
    If she appeared in any way to act as a servant, it is sufficient 2 Esp. N. P. 645. The jury ought to take into view the injury to the feelings of the father and the disgrace of the family.
    
      M'Kenney for the defendant,
    said he, should give the moral character of the young woman in evidence and adduced 2 Hay. 300 per M'Coy J.
    Per Curiam. This cannot be done, nor can we conceive a case, at present, where it were legal to put the whole moral character of a person in issue. So great are the frailties of our nature, that none are perfect.
    Every citizen is entitled to the benefit of the laws in the preservation of his life,liberty, property,reputation, and if, in indeavoring to procure redress for injuries, we were to permit evidence of the moral character of an individual in every respect, endless contentions would arise, calculated only to mangle the feelings and reputation of individuals. Courts of justice, so far from being a blessing, would like Pandora’s box, no sooner be opened, than innumerable injuries would arise.
    The character of an individual, as to particular virtues, or vices, may some times come directly in issue, but never the entire moral character, composed of an assemblage of virtues or vices.
    In the view of repairing the injury done to the father for the loss of services, it is perfectly unimportant whether the young woman was of easy virtue, or not. If her morals in this respect have been relaxed, it may for ought we know, be owing to the defendant.
    
      Should the plaintiff insist for damages done to his feelings and reputation of his family, then it may be proper to inquire into her character as to chastity, but not before.
    
      M'Kenney, Yearsly & Whiteside for defendant.
    It appears from the evidence, that this young woman had not lived much in her father’s house for twelve months before she became pregnant.
    She had lived chiefly at her sisters, several miles off, and had once hired herself to Mr. Shannon.
    Under these circumstances she could not be considered as one of her father’s family, and consequently could not be assisting as a servant.
    It is in proof that the child was begotten at her sisters, the declaration therefore cannot be supported. The gist of this action is quare domum fregit. There could be no trespass to the house of the father when the young woman was begotten with child at the house of her sister.
    The trespass is the principle ground of the action, and the begetting the child,per quod servitium amisit accident only. 2 L. Ray. 1032. 3 Bl. Com. 142. 2 T. R. 167, 8, 3d Burr 1878.
    
      Verdict for the defendant.
    
   Per Curiam.

It is immaterial where the act of seduction happened.

This young woman was frequently assisting in her father’s family, and whether she was sometimes at her sisters or nor does not relate to the merits of the question.

Slight evidence of her assisting in the family is sufficient. Her father had the trouble and expence or her lying in, for which he ought to be remunerated vide 1 Esp. Rep. 217.  