Plourd v. Jarvis

• Decision Date: 02 August 1904
• Citation: 58 A. 774,99 Me. 161
• Parties: PLOURD v. JARVIS.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

58 A. 774

99 Me. 161

PLOURD

v. JARVIS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Aug. 2, 1904.

(Official.)

On Motion from Supreme Judicial Court, Penobscot County.

Action by Peter Plourd against Henry Jarvis. Verdict for plaintiff for $2,333.33, and defendant excepts, and moves for new trial. Motion and exceptions overruled.

Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and EMERY, SAVAGE, POWERS, and SPEAR, JJ.

H. H. Patten, for plaintiff.

F. J. Martin and H. M. Cook, for defendant.

EMERY, J. This case is before the law court on the defendant's exceptions to the admissibility of certain evidence and on his motion to set aside the verdict against him as against the evidence.

1. The Exceptions. The pith of the plaintiff's declaration is that the defendant "unlawfully persuaded and enticed" the plaintiff's wife to refuse him marital intercourse. The defendant did not demur, but traversed. As tending to prove the above allegation, and as a step towards such proof, the plaintiff offered evidence of interviews between the defendant and the plaintiff's wife; of their meetings in a saloon at night; of their meetings in the defendant's barn; of his leaving the plaintiff's house about daylight in the morning; of his being seen in the wife's bedroom on the bed; of his being in her bedroom with the wife; of his admission that he came out of plaintiff's house with his clothes in his arms on hearing somebody knock at the door. To all this evidence the defendant objected, but it was admitted, and the defendant excepted.

The offered evidence may not amount to proof that the defendant "unlawfully persuaded and enticed" the wife to refuse her husband marital intercourse, but the circumstances shown by the evidence are clearly admissible as showing the relations—the intimacy—between the defendant and the wife, as showing his influence over her, and as showing his disposition and his motives for the alleged action. These circumstances are at least steps toward proof, and proper to be considered with other circumstances. The absence of these circumstances would certainly be evidence to be considered. Their presence, then, must be evidence.

The defendant, however, argues that the evidence directly tended to prove adultery, or at least alienation of the wife's affections, specific wrongs distinct and different from what charged; and hence tended to prejudice the jury against the defendant as to the wrong that was charged. If this be true, it cannot deprive the plaintiff of the evidence,...