Gordon v. Parker, Civ. No. 7541.

Decision Date17 February 1949
Docket NumberCiv. No. 7541.
Citation83 F. Supp. 43
PartiesGORDON v. PARKER.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

Willis A. Downs and John J. O'Neill, both of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Allan Roy Kingston, of Somerville, Mass., for defendant.

WYZANSKI, District Judge.

In this case the jury's verdicts have found Mr. Parker is not liable for criminal conversation with Mrs. Gordon (Count 2) but is liable for alienating her affections from Mr. Gordon (Count 1). The question is whether this Court ought to set aside the verdict on Count 1.

If the jury had been severely logical, there were, it seems to me, three differing views of the evidence which were equally plausible.

(1) Mr. Parker wrote suggestive letters to Mrs. Gordon, embraced her and kissed her but never had intercourse with her or enticed her to leave Mr. Gordon. A meddlesome aunt, Mrs. Hays, seeking to alienate the affections of Mr. Gordon for Mrs. Gordon, picked out of the furnace scraps of these letters and had her sister show them to Mr. Gordon. He, believing that there had been adultery, had reactions familiar to psychiatrists which quite possibly resulted in failure of intercourse between him and his wife. The combination of suspicion, injured pride and goading from meddlesome relatives led Mr. Gordon to bring a suit in Pennsylvania for divorce from his wife and a suit in this Court against Mr. Parker for criminal conversation and alienation of affections.

(2) Mr. Parker wrote suggestive letters to Mrs. Gordon, embraced her and kissed her but never had intercourse with her. Yet his conduct was with the purpose of disrupting the marriage relation and had the effect of inducing Mrs. Gordon to refuse sexual relations with Mr. Gordon on his return from India.

(3) Mr. Parker and Mrs. Gordon had sexual intercourse without Mr. Gordon's consent.

A wilful judge who detested actions of this type or who regarded the first of these three theories of the evidence as the one most likely to correspond with the truth might be tempted to set aside the jury's verdict for plaintiff on Count 1 and to grant a new trial, if not to enter judgment for defendant. But such strong measures do not appear appropriate if one is mindful of the limitations of judicial office. The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 38, 28 U.S. C.A., preserve jury trial in this type of case. And there is much to be said for allowing twelve men selected at random from the community to exercise wide discretion in the form of verdicts they render on sexual conduct. If one approaches the verdicts in the case at bar in a mood sympathetic to juries, and if one regards the law not as a mere grant of power to a court but also...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Parker v. Gordon
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • December 22, 1949
  • WH Elliott & Sons Co. v. E. & F. KING & CO., 5467-5470.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • April 27, 1961
    ...substantive rights need not be determined. See United States v. Pleva, 2 Cir., 1933, 66 F.2d 529, 531-33. But cf. Gordon v. Parker, D.C.D.Mass.1949, 83 F.Supp. 43, 45, affirmed, 1 Cir., 1949, 178 F.2d 888. We believe it an appropriate matter to consider at least when an inconsistency, such ......
  • Malm v. United States Lines Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • January 19, 1967
    ...v. Steinhauer, 188 F.2d 432, 436 (8th Cir. 1951); Jayne v. Mason & Dixon Lines, 124 F.2d 317, 319 (2d Cir. 1941); Gordon v. Parker, 83 F.Supp. 43, 44 (D.Mass.), aff'd, 178 F.2d 888 (1st Cir. 1949). 2 "Juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges." Jackson, J. in Morissette......
  • Ilnicki v. Montgomery Ward Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • January 11, 1967
    ...8 Cir., 188 F.2d 432, 436; Curto v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, D.C., 107 F.Supp. 805, 809; Gordon v. Parker, D.C., 83 F.Supp. 43. Defendant's contention relative to the alleged inconsistency of the jury verdict is Lastly, defendant contends that the court committed......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT