Leucker v. Steileu

• Decision Date: 30 September 1878
• Citation: 1878 WL 10080,31 Am.Rep. 104,89 Ill. 545
• Parties: MATHIAS LEUCKERv.NICHOLAS STEILEU.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

89 Ill. 545

1878 WL 10080 (Ill.)

31 Am.Rep. 104

MATHIAS LEUCKER

v.NICHOLAS STEILEU.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1878.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN G. ROGERS, Judge, presiding. This was an action of trespass, brought by the appellee against the appellant, for the seduction of plaintiff's daughter, Catharine Steileu.

The declaration contained but one count, charging that the defendant, on December 25, 1874, and on divers other days between that day and the commencement of this suit, in said Cook county, with force and arms, etc., assaulted, debauched and carnally knew one Catharine Steileu, then and from thence hitherto being the daughter and servant of the plaintiff, whereby the said Catharine became pregnant and sick with child, and so remained for a long time then next following, by means of which said several premises, she, the said Catharine, from the day first above mentioned hitherto, there became and was unable to do or perform the necessary affairs and business of the plaintiff, and whereby the plaintiff, during all that time, lost and was deprived of the services of his said daughter and servant; and also, by means of the premises, the plaintiff was obliged to, and did necessarily pay out divers sums of money, in the whole amounting to $100, in and about the nursing and taking care of the said Catharine Steileu, his daughter and servant, and other wrongs the defendant to the plaintiff then and there did, etc.

The defendant pleaded the general issue. A trial was had, resulting in a verdict and judgment of $500 for the plaintiff.

Catharine Steileu testified, she was eighteen years old, and had always lived with her father, except that about three years before, she worked at defendant's about five weeks. That defendant was the husband of her mother's half-sister. That after she left his house she went to his saloon for some beer. When she went she was sick. He took her in the second room, did not say anything, but took her under her arms and put her down on a lounge, laid himself on her. He hurt me. Did not do that but once. I didn't say anything nor did he. I did not scream or cry out. He made me. He said if I hollered he would whip me. After he got through I went home. I went there again for beer some weeks afterwards. He did not attempt anything next time. I continued at my father's. I was delivered at my father's. When this occurred he made me no promises and did not kiss me. I was in the room about half an hour.

Mr. S. ASHTON, for the appellant,

Contended, that the proof showed no seduction, and that the plaintiff, before he would be entitled to recover, must show, in addition to illicit intercourse, that the daughter's consent was obtained by flattery, promises or other artifices used by the defendant. Delvee v. Boardman, 20 Iowa, 446. That if it be claimed the term seduction, used, is a mere fiction, and that the suit is based upon loss of services, then the damages were excessive, there being in the proof no element of seduction shown.

In this class of cases the rule is, that it is competent to show particular instances of the daughter's previous lascivious conduct, as her previous misconduct may be shown in mitigation of damages. It was also claimed, that evidence of previous unchaste conduct is admissible in mitigation. Bracy v. Kibbe, 31 Barb. 273; Zerfing v. Mowrer, 2 Green, 520.

Testimony relating directly to facts bearing on the relations of persons whose conduct is in question, is a part of the res gestæ, and is proper. Threadgool v. Litsgot, 22 Mich. 271.

When the proof shows merely criminal connection, without seduction, the damages should be confined to the loss of services and the expenses incurred by the plaintiff, resulting from the act. Hill v. Wilson, 8 Blackf. 123.

Mr. T. A. MORAN, for the appellee:

Bouvier defines seduction, as “the act of a man in seducing a woman to commit unlawful sexual intercourse with him.” It does not appear that any particular length of time is needed to be spent in the endeavor to have intercourse with a woman, to make it seduction. If the defendant, by taking this girl in his arms and laying her upon the lounge, and handling her for a moment in a lascivious manner, so aroused her passion as to cause her to consent to have sexual intercourse, or if he took her into the room, and by the use of the influence he had over her by reason of being her uncle, or by fear, caused by his threats, he succeeded in hushing her outcries, preventing...