Leardi v. Gonser

• Decision Date: 08 February 1961
• Docket Number: No. 13949,13949
• Citation: 23 Conn.Supp. 65,176 A.2d 594
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court
• Parties: Stella LEARDI v. Emilie GONSER.

Page 594

176 A.2d 594

23 Conn.Supp. 65

Stella LEARDI v. Emilie GONSER.

No. 13949.

Superior Court of Connecticut, Middlesex County.

Feb. 8, 1961.

Norman Sivin, Old Saybrook, for plaintiff.

Jordan L. Bushnell, Westbrook, for defendant.

MacDONALD, Judge.

Upon the evidence adduced at the trial, there is no doubt whatsoever that plaintiff is entitled to recover for the alienation of her husband's affections by defendant. Under the circumstances involved here, the motives of defendant, even assuming that she had no intention of luring plaintiff's husband away from the home, are of little importance, for, as our Supreme Court has stated in Maggay v. Nikitko, 117 Conn. 206, 209, 167 A. 816, 817: 'In order to be a basis for a recovery by a plaintiff for the alienation of his wife's affections, the acts of the defendant relied upon, unless they were themselves wrongful, as, for instance, where the alienation results from adultery with the plaintiff's wife, must have been done intentionally, or from an unjustifiable motive, or have been persisted in with knowledge that they [were] doing, or [were] likely to do, a wrong to the plaintiff' (italics supplied). As pointed out by defendant, the court has held in Valentine v. Pollak, 95 Conn. 556, 560, 111 A. 869, 871, that the fact of adultery alone does not give rise to a presumption that there was also alienation of affections, but on the same page the court stated that 'the circumstances may make of it strong proof of this.'

The only real question here is as to the amount of damages plaintiff is entitled to recover. Her married life with her husband at the time the acts of defendant complained of occurred was not of the happiest, and apparently much of their mutual affection had disappeared to the extent that they were living apart. Such evidence goes to mitigation of damages rather...