Hartpence v. Rodgers

• Decision Date: 08 March 1898
• Citation: 143 Mo. 623,45 S.W. 650
• Parties: HARTPENCE v. RODGERS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

45 S.W. 650

143 Mo. 623

HARTPENCE v. RODGERS.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 8, 1898.

HUSBAND AND WIFE — ALIENATION OF A WIFE'S AFFECTIONS — EVIDENCE — HARMLESS ERROR — INSTRUCTIONS — DAMAGES — SMART MONEY.

1. Where, in the trial of an action for the alienation of his wife's affections, plaintiff was asked what caused him to leave defendant's farm, where he and his wife were living at the time complained of, and he answered, "He [defendant] gained the affections of my wife, and she was no more a wife to me," no objection having been made to the question, the answer was admissible if it was material to know his reasons for his actions.

2. Where a statement made in answer to a question was a mere conclusion, which was undisputed, its admission was harmless error.

3. One who intentionally persuades another's wife to leave him is liable therefor, without reference to his motives in so doing.

4. An instruction which sets out all the facts necessary for plaintiff to recover, and refers the jury to the petition by adding, "as stated in the petition," is not error.

5. In an action for the alienation of a wife's affections, an instruction speaking of defendant's causing the wife to "sever the marriage relation of husband and wife" would not mislead the jury to understand it to refer to legal separation by divorce or death, and not to the actual severing of the relations of husband and wife, and is not error.

6. In an action for the alienation of a wife's affections, an instruction that, in order for plaintiff to recover, he should prove defendant directly requested his wife to leave him, or to institute a suit for divorce against him; but if the jury believe the defendant was intentionally guilty of conduct calculated to prejudice defendant's wife against him, and to alienate her from him, and to induce her to leave him, and such effect was intended and was actually produced by his conduct, they should find for plaintiff, — is not error.

7. Where there is material conflict in the testimony, it is not error to instruct that, if any witness has willfully sworn falsely to any material fact, the jury can disregard his entire evidence, and that, in weighing conflicting testimony, they should consider which was most reasonable.

8. In an action for the alienation of a wife's affections, the husband is entitled to recover for the wrong and injury done to his feelings and character.

9. An instruction that plaintiff was entitled to recover for the wrong and injury done to his feelings, character, and "condition" was not error.

10. Where, in an action for the alienation of a wife's affections, the evidence was such that the jury must have determined, in finding for the plaintiff, that the defendant's motive was to take the wife for himself, there is no material error in an instruction, if they found for the plaintiff, to include exemplary damages in their verdict, not exceeding, with other damages, the amount claimed.

11. Where, in an action for the alienation of a wife's affections, the evidence clearly showed defendant openly avowed his love for the wife, was her constant companion when circumstances permitted, openly expressed his desire to separate her from her husband and supplant him in her affections, and wrote her letters of the most affectionate character, the court properly refused an instruction that there was no evidence of criminal intimacy by defendant with plaintiff's wife.

12. Where, in an action for the alienation of a wife's affections, it appears that the defendant is a man of property, a verdict for $5,250, with which the trial judge refused to interfere, will not be reversed as excessive.

Appeal from circuit court, Caldwell county; E. J. Broaddus, Judge.

Action by George Hartpence against George F. Rodgers. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Crosby Johnson, for appellant. O. J. Chapman, for respondent.

WILLIAMS, J.

This is an action for damages for alienating the affections of plaintiff's wife, and wrongfully causing her to abandon him. The petition further charges that defendant debauched her, but the jury was not required to pass upon that issue. The answer was a general denial. The errors assigned relate to the action of the court in the admission and exclusion of evidence, the giving and refusal of instructions, and the failure to set aside the verdict because excessive. Plaintiff's evidence tended to show that he was married August 1, 1889, and that he and his wife lived together happily thereafter until in the month of December, 1892; that, during all that time, she was kind, dutiful, and affectionate; and that he treated her with all the consideration and kindness of a devoted husband. The father and mother of plaintiff's wife were residing with defendant upon his farm, having gone there in November, 1892. The parties were in no manner related to each other. Defendant had no family, and they were living with him to help upon the farm, and to keep house for him. The plaintiff and his wife, in December, 1892, moved into the dwelling where defendant and the father and mother of plaintiff's wife were living, as above stated. The plaintiff went there to assist his father-in-law in work upon the farm. Defendant was a large landowner, and reputed to be a man of wealth. He began, within a week or two after the arrival of plaintiff's wife, to show her marked attention. He soon boldly protested his love for her, and he made her presents, and stated that he intended to get a piano for her. He put a diamond ring upon her finger, and let her have it to wear. He advised her to get a divorce from plaintiff, and suggested that she go to Dakota for that purpose. He offered to go with her, and said that they could assume to be brother and sister. The wife began to treat her husband with coolness, and manifest a preference for defendant's society. She laid aside her wedding ring for the more beautiful one which defendant was able to furnish her to wear. She declined to accede to her husband's request to leave the farm, and go to another location with him. The husband, after six or seven weeks spent upon defendant's place, determined, under the circumstances mentioned, to leave. His wife at first asked him to stay. Defendant told her to "let her husband go if he wanted to; that he (defendant) could take better care of her than" her husband. Then she ceased to ask him to remain. The proof showed that defendant said, at one time, the sooner he could get rid of plaintiff, the quicker he could have plaintiff's wife. Upon several occasions, during his temporary absence from home, defendant wrote most affectionate letters to Mrs. Hartpence. The husband, in the latter part of January, 1893, left defendant's farm. The wife refused to go, and remained there with her father and mother. They stayed some 10 months longer, and then left. Plaintiff obtained a divorce from his wife. They never lived together after January, 1893. Without setting out any more of plaintiff's evidence, it is sufficient to say that the testimony upon his part tended to show a systematic and constant effort by defendant to win the affections of plaintiff's wife, to break the ties between her and her husband, and cause her to abandon him. The defendant introduced only one witness, who was called simply for the purpose of testifying to statements alleged to have been made by plaintiff's mother-in-law (who was a witness for him), contradictory of the evidence given by her upon the stand. Defendant was called by plaintiff, and identified, as in his handwriting, some of the amorous and telltale letters written by him. He did not, however, deny any of the damaging statements concerning his conduct and conversations testified to by plaintiff's witnesses, but remained entirely silent as to that matter. In fact, his actions might well be said to be convincing evidence of the truth of what had been testified.

1. The first question that arises is the correctness of the court's ruling upon the competency of evidence offered. During the examination of plaintiff, he was asked by his counsel what caused him to leave defendant's farm. He answered: "He [defendant] gained the affections of my wife, and she was no more a wife to me." Defendant objected to this answer, and saved an exception. It is argued that this statement was a conclusion of the witness, and not a statement of a fact. Plaintiff was called upon to give his reason for refusing to remain at the farm. No objection was made to this question. The response was a legitimate answer to that inquiry. The testimony was not offered to show the fact of the alienation of the wife's affections. If the witness had said in answer to this question that he went away because he believed defendant had alienated his wife's affections, it would have been an appropriate answer. Yet his belief would not have been competent to establish the fact which he believed to be true. Still, it would have been a proper answer if it was material to know his reasons for his actions. The witness was being interrogated as to why he left defendant's place, and his answer had reference to what he understood to be the facts, and upon which he acted. If, however, the statement should be held to be a mere conclusion, it is such a conclusion as all the evidence shows beyond peradventure was a correct one, and which defendant did not offer to dispute. The defendant could not possibly have been injured by the admission of this evidence in view of the other testimony in the case. Several exceptions were taken during the progress of the trial to the exclusion of questions asked the witnesses by defendant. We have carefully examined each of them. It will serve no purpose, except to lengthen this opinion, for us to set them out here. Suffice it to say that we find no fault with the rulings of the lower court in said matters.

2. The first, third, and fourth instructions for plaintiff contained a...