Mathies v. Mazet

• Citation: 30 A. 434,164 Pa. 580
• Decision Date: 05 November 1894
• Docket Number: 145
• Parties: B. Matheis v. William Mazet, Appellant
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

30 A. 434

164 Pa. 580

B. Matheis v. William Mazet, Appellant

No. 145

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

November 5, 1894

Argued October 26, 1894

Appeal, No. 145, Oct. T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Dec. T., 1892, No. 648, on verdict for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for alienation of wife's affection and for crim. con. Before STOWE, P.J.

At the trial the evidence for plaintiff tended to show that defendant seduced plaintiff's wife, and that on Nov. 19 1892, defendant and plaintiff's wife were discovered together in bed in an assignation house, by a detective employed by plaintiff. Defendant testified that he had been solicited by plaintiff's wife but did not have carnal relations with her.

Plaintiff under objection and exception, gave evidence to show defendant's financial condition. [5, 6]

The court charged in part as follows:

"In this case the alienation is alleged to be the result of the copulation, and before you can find a verdict for the plaintiff here you must be satisfied that there was actual illicit intercourse commenced -- not that they were simply lying in bed together, but that they had actually commenced that which was copulation, even if they were stopped before the whole matter had been accomplished in the natural way. If you believe that then the plaintiff is entitled to your verdict for damages. If you are not satisfied of that under all the testimony, you ought to find a verdict for defendant. But if you do believe it, as I said, the plaintiff is entitled to your verdict, and then the question arises upon what basis you must estimate or calculate those damages.

"[There is no fixed rule, and there cannot be, in compensating a man for a wrong done him by acts of this kind. You cannot measure it by dollars and cents as you would any commodity sold in the market; it has to be determined under all the circumstances by the good judgment of the jury, and they are to take into consideration in that view the social relation of the parties, the apparent affection that existed between the husband and wife, the actual misconduct of the plaintiff who was alleged to be the seducer.]

"I do not think, where a man enters a house under the guise of friendship, and there takes advantage of his position and deliberately seduces a man's wife, that it should be or would be looked upon by a jury in the same way as in a case where a man simply meets a married woman, and she, by insinuations thrown out by her to him, induces him to believe he can have intercourse with her and he does it. I do not think the jury ought to look upon those matters in the same light and find verdicts of damages to the same extent.

"[Nor where a man is poor, although he may be found guilty, should the jury, in that part of their verdict which we call punitive damages, based upon merely penal damages, impose the same amount as they would in a case where the man is well off. As has been said in a case read to you, there is a very great difference in a penalty as between a rich man and a poor man; what would be absolutely ruinous to a poor man worth probably a few hundreds or thousands of dollars, would not amount to anything by way of penalty to a man worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.]

"These remarks are only by way of suggestion. I do not mean to insinuate that there is anything in this case to justify the jury in finding a verdict for the plaintiff. That is entirely for you. Nor do I mean to insinuate whether your verdict, if you find for plaintiff, ought to be large or small. That is also for yourselves; you are to take all these matters, you are to take all the testimony and find as you believe it to be under the evidence and form your verdict in accordance with the wrong done the plaintiff, and also with a view to the acts on the part of the defendant. Did he go there as a seducer? Did he hunt up this woman? Did he, with the intent of gratifying his own lust, step into a happy household and break it up? If he did, that is one point of view. Did he meet this woman, and did she commence complaining to him about the conduct of her husband? Did she seek him out; did she actually invite him to do that which he undertook to do whether he accomplished it or not? If she did, it is not to be treated in the same way as though he had gone there intentionally, a deliberate seducer trying to break up the household of the plaintiff.

"[Now you are, in a general way, to look at the wounded feelings and affections of the plaintiff; you are to look at the wrong done to his social and family relations, you are to consider the dishonor brought upon his family. If he is entitled to a verdict, all those matters are to be considered. How much were his feelings wounded? That depends very much upon the relations between him and his wife, and his affections. A man that cared nothing for his wife, treated her unkindly and brutally, cannot be wounded very much as far as affections are concerned by the fact that his wife may make a false step, but notwithstanding that, there may be a serious injury to his social relations; he may be occupying such a position that the fact that his wife committed this wrong upon him would very much injure his standing among his friends and acquaintances, notwithstanding he may not have been the husband he ought to have been. And so the dishonor is part of the same idea. The degradation which causes the distress, and the mental anguish which follows, are the real grounds of recovery.]

"[And I may say, in addition to that, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, if for anything, what we call penal damages, that is, an amount of money outside of that which would actually compensate him, if there is any such thing as compensation, as we call it in law, for his wounded feelings and loss of social position and character. You are entitled to consider what we call damages by way of penalty, an imposition upon him for his misconduct. The idea seems to be to operate as a sort of detriment to others to prevent their doing things of this kind. It is not the policy of the law to confine the recovery of the injured party to mere compensation for the injury done by the loss of his wife's services. An additional amount may be given by way of what is called punitive damages, that is damages in the nature of a penalty for his offense.]" [4]

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $3,500.

Errors...