Rash v. Pratt

• Decision Date: 26 April 1920
• Citation: Rash v. Pratt, 111 A. 225, 31 Del. 18 (Del. Super. 1920)
• Court: Delaware Superior Court
• Parties: GEORGE W. RASH v. JOHN R. PRATT

111 A. 225

31 Del. 18

GEORGE W. RASH v. JOHN R. PRATT

Superior Court of Delaware, Kent County

April 26, 1920

Superior Court for Kent County, April Term, 1920.

Trespass No. 36, October Term, 1917.

Action by George W. Rash against John R. Pratt for damages for alienation of wife's affections. Verdict for defendant.

The plaintiff, who was a widower, about 62 years of age, almost totally deaf, and having several children, testified that in 1912 he read in a newspaper an advertisement of a lady living in Canada who desired a position as housekeeper, which he answered, suggesting that she come to see him at his home which she did; that about a week later they were married, and for two years lived happily together, she being kind to him good to his children and all that could be desired; that such relations continued until his wife became acquainted with the defendant, and he (Rash) and his wife went, at defendant's request, to live on one of defendant's farms; that the visits of the defendant to this farm soon became very frequent, and his relations with plaintiff's wife intimate; that he would assist her in washing dishes, making bread and performing her other household duties; that he (plaintiff) on one occasion peeped through the window, under the blinds, and saw the defendant lying on a couch with his wife; that his wife soon became cold towards him and her manner and treatment toward him very different from what they had been; that a short time later she left him, but, after much persuasion, returned to live with him; that she soon left again, for good, taking their boy, about two years of age, whom he loved, with her; that she could not be induced to return to him, but that the defendant continued to visit her; that he loved his wife, provided her a comfortable home, proper food and clothing, and that nothing but the attention of the defendant won her affections and ruined his home. A daughter of plaintiff testified that she saw her stepmother and Mr. Pratt at times sitting or lying on the lounge and hugging and kissing. And a boy from an adjoining farm, who visited the Rash children, testified that he once saw Mrs. Rash with her arms around the defendant; also that he saw Pratt in a room with Mrs. Rash with the door closed and the blinds down at the windows.

Pratt testified that he rented the farm on shares in April or May, 1914, to a young man named Brown, a brother of Mrs. Rash; that Rash, some time in the fall, after his wife had left him and come on the farm to live with her brother, moved there with his children; that Brown went to war, leaving the farm on his (Pratt's) hands; that he hired help to carry on the farm who lived with Rash; that he furnished provisions for the help and Mrs. Rash did the cooking for them for which he paid her $ 3 per week; that he lived some distance from the farm, but frequently drove over to look after the work of the hands, the stock, crops, fruit, etc.; that on one occasion he found Mrs. Rash sick and that he did cooking for the men; that he had considerable repairing done on the house which required his presence more frequently; that after Mrs. Rash left he gave Rash notice to quit the premises, but he remained on the farm until he (Pratt) instituted legal proceedings against him; that Rash sued him in this action on the day of the hearing in court; that Rash then moved from the farm. Pratt denied that he was ever on the lounge with Mrs. Rash, or in any manner unduly intimate with her while on the farm or since she left it; and he specifically denied each and every the acts of intimacy testified to by the plaintiff and his witnesses; that when he was about the house, either some of his help or the children were there; that Rash never made any complaint to him about any improper relations with his wife; that after Mrs. Rash left her husband on the farm, he (Pratt) continued to go there as before, and frequently ate his meals, which he brought from his home, with Rash and his children, at his table, at his request; that he was in no way responsible for Mrs. Rash leaving her husband.

One of the colored men working on the farm while Rash, his wife, and children were there, testified that he had heard Mr. Rash curse his wife and accuse her of improper conduct with "us colored labor." This testimony was corroborated by the wife of the witness and another person. Another witness testified that after Mrs. Rash had left her husband, and after Rash had left the Pratt farm--

"Mr. Rash called me. He said: 'Rachel, come here.' I went to the door. He said: 'Is that John Pratt?' I said: 'Yes, sir'. He said: 'Go and tell him to come here. I want him.' I said: 'Yes, sir.' I said: 'Mr. Pratt, when you hitch, Mr. Rash wants to see you.' He said: 'All right.' He went in there. He said: 'John, get a chair and sit down here beside me.' Well, he did it, of course. He laid his hand on Mr. Pratt's knee. He said: Mr. Pratt, you have done me lots of favors.' 'Mr. Pratt just shook his head and laughed. He said: 'You are a man I like. You are a good-hearted man. I once blamed you for my wife leaving me, but now I do not.'"

Rash denied this conversation.

Persons about the farm and premises while Mrs. Rash was there testified that they saw no improper conduct between her and the defendant.

Mrs. Rash testified that it was because of drunkenness, and the cruel and abusive treatment and nonsupport of her by her husband that made it necessary for her to leave him, and go home to her mother in Canada, but soon thereafter, at the solicitation of her mother, she returned to him; that because of like treatment she left her husband again and went to her brother, who was a tenant on defendant's farm in Kent county. She denied that her husband requested her to move to the Pratt farm, or that she knew he was coming there after she left him and went to live with her brother; that she again left him because of his abuse and ill treatment while they were on the farm and never returned to live with him. She denied each and every charge of intimacies with the defendant made by her husband.

W., called to testify on behalf of the defendant, after stating that she is a nurse, was asked:

Q. Did Mrs. Rash make any statements to you in 1913 in relation to her husband, and, if so, what?

Mr. Frame: I object.

Mr. Harrington: The question is whether the separation was caused by Mr. Pratt or by the plaintiff. Mr. Wigmore lays it down that, in a case like this, any evidence to show the state of feelings of the wife toward her husband--anything she may have said to a third person showing her feelings toward her husband--is admissible. Evidence of this character is let in, such as (1) declarations made by the wife at the time of, or immediately before or after, complaint by the husband, as a part of the res gestae; (2) declarations made by the wife at any time to third persons of her feelings toward her husband, not as a part of the res gestae but as an index of her feelings toward her husband. 1 Ency, of Ev. 757; 1 Greenl. on Ev. § 102; 21 Cyc. 1624; 3 Wig. on Ev. § 1729; Roesner v. Darrah. 65 Kan. 599, 601, 602, 70 P. 597; Perry v. Lovejoy, 49 Mich. 529, 533, 534, 14 N.W. 485; Rose v. Mitchell, 21 R. I. 270-272, 43 A. 67; Ash v. Prunier, 105 F. 722, 724, 44 C. C. A. 675; Horner v. Yance, 93 Wis. 352-354, 67 N.W. 720; Palmer v. Crook, 7 Gray (Mass.) 418-420; Preston v. Bowers, 13 Ohio St. 11, 12, 82 Am. Dec. 430; Fratini v. Caslini, 66 Vt. 273, 275, 29 A. 252, 44 Am. St. Rep. 843.

Verdict for defendant.

Thomas C. Frame, Jr., and J. Hall Anderson for plaintiff.

James M. Satterfield and W. Watson Harrington for defendant.

PENNEWILL, C. J., and BOYCE, J., sitting.

OPINION

PENNEWILL, C. J.

We will admit this testimony, subject to a motion to strike out.

Q. Did Mrs. Rash make any declarations to you in the year 1912 in relation to her husband's treatment of her, and her feelings toward him?

A. Not in 1912, she didn't.

Q. In what year did she make them?

A. 1913.

Q. What, if anything, did Mrs. Rash say to you on the occasion that you have just referred to in relation to her feelings toward her husband?

A. She told me she couldn't love him. She said he didn't use her right. He drank, and was abusive; and he was too hard of hearing. Any time she spoke to him about it he was insanely jealous about it, and it was awful trying on her nerves; she couldn't stand it. She would be a nervous wreck if she had to live with that old man.

Q. Did you have any other conversation with Mrs. Rash the latter part of 1914, before she went to the Pratt farm, in relation to her feelings toward her husband?

A. I certainly did. Her mother and Mrs. Rash came to my house. It was in 1914, and they wept most all of the afternoon, sat there crying and talking about her marriage to this man.

Mr. Frame: I object.

PENNEWILL, C. J. The objection is overruled, subject to a motion to strike out.

Mr. Frame: I now move to strike out all of the testimony of the last witness, who testified yesterday before adjournment, on the ground of irrelevancy.

PENNEWILL C. J. Just before the adjournment of the court yesterday afternoon, in order to allow a witness, who could not return today, to be examined, as well as to hasten the trial of the case, the court permitted her to testify that the plaintiff's wife made admissions to her which indicated that she had no love or affection for her husband before there were any relations between the wife and the defendant. This testimony was admitted, however with the understanding that if the court should conclude, after an examination of the law, that it was inadmissible, it would be stricken out.

We are now satisfied that such testimony was admissible on the ground that, as the plaintiff seeks to...