Bockman v. Ritter

• Decision Date: 30 November 1898
• Docket Number: 2,655
• Citation: 52 N.E. 100,21 Ind.App. 250
• Parties: BOCKMAN v. RITTER
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

52 N.E. 100

21 Ind.App. 250

BOCKMAN v. RITTER

No. 2,655

Court of Appeals of Indiana

November 30, 1898

From the Kosciusko Circuit Court.

Affirmed.

L. R Stookey, A. F. Biggs and E. Hammond, for appellant.

John D Widaman, Odell Oldfather and Wm. D. Frazer, for appellee.

OPINION

BLACK C. J.

In the appellee's complaint against the appellant it was shown that the appellee and one Julia F. Thorn were married on the 4th of January, 1879, and that they lived together as husband and wife from that date until the 12th of September, 1896; that four children were born to them, one of whom had died, and two girls and a boy still survived; that during that period he provided his said wife with all necessary food and clothing, and furnished her with a good and comfortable home; that he treated her kindly and was a good and "dutiful" husband; "that about four years ago, the defendant began to poison the mind of his said wife against the plaintiff, and caused her to dislike him by maliciously making to her false statements regarding this plaintiff, and by showing her numerous marks of kindness and affection his said wife became in love with said defendant. And the plaintiff avers that on discovering the condition of mind of his said wife towards him and that she was in love with the said defendant, he tried to reason with her and to induce her to have nothing more to do with the said defendant, and he forbade the said defendant to have anything to do with his said wife. And the plaintiff avers that the defendant herein persisted in his attentions to his said wife; that he would visit her at the house of this plaintiff when the plaintiff was away from home, both in the daytime and at night, and that after the death of defendant's wife his attentions to plaintiff's wife became more numerous and his visits more frequent, until plaintiff's wife informed this plaintiff that she cared nothing for him and would not live with him longer, that she had more regard and affection for the defendant than she had for this plaintiff; and on the said 12th day of September, 1896, she finally left the plaintiff, left her home, and declared that she would live with him no longer. And the plaintiff avers that the defendant has alienated the affections of his said wife from this plaintiff, and broken up plaintiff's family; that he has done so knowingly, purposely and maliciously; and that thereby he has deprived this plaintiff of his said wife, and her aid, comfort and love." Wherefore, etc.

It is contended that upon a motion of the appellant which was overruled, the court should have compelled the appellee to make the complaint more specific by stating therein what false and malicious statements the appellant made to appellee's wife, stating the language used and when and where the statements were made. We think the court did not err in this refusal. The gist of such an action is the plaintiff's loss of the society, comfort and assistance of his wife. In an action on the case for inducing the plaintiff's wife to continue absent, it was held sufficient to state that the defendant unlawfully and unjustly persuaded, procured and enticed the wife to continue absent, by means of which persuasion she did continue absent etc., whereby the plaintiff lost her society, without setting forth the means of...