Ratcliffe v. Walker

• Decision Date: 10 June 1915
• Citation: 117 Va. 669,85 S.E. 575
• Parties: RATCLIFFE et al. v. WALKER,
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

85 S.E. 575

117 Va. 669

RATCLIFFE et al.

v.WALKER,

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 10, 1915.

Error to Law and Equity Court of City of Richmond.

Action by Thomas Grant Walker against H. L. Ratcliffe and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Meredith & Cocke, of Richmond, for plaintiffs in error.

L. O. Wendenburg and T. Gray Haddon, both of Richmond, for defendant in error.

KELLY, J. This is an action of trespass on the case brought by Thomas Grant Walker against H. L. Ratcliffe and Alice, his wife, and their children, Frank, John, and Alice Ratcliffe. The declaration charges the formation and execution of a conspiracy to alienate from the plaintiff the affections of his wife, who was a daughter of II. L. and Alice Ratcliffe, and a sister of the other defendants. To a judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000 this writ of error was awarded.

The evidence is voluminous, and on some points conflicting, but, viewing it as on a demurrer, the following facts appear: The plaintiff at the time of his marriage was 32 years old, and resided in Richmond. His wife was 22, lived with her parents near Richmond (paying for her board), and was employed in the city as a stenographer. They had known each other for several years, and had been engaged for about 8 months. The plaintiff had for a long time been a frequent and apparently welcome visitor at her home, going there several times each week, and nearly always taking supper there on Sunday night. He had accumulated a small estate and was a man of good character. The defendants disclaim all knowledge of the engagement, but do not suggestany valid objection, and say that their only grievance was that they were not informed of the contemplated marriage. The ceremony took place on the morning of April 25, 1913, at the home of the officiating minister in Richmond, in the presence of the minister's wife and of a sister and brother-in-law of the plaintiff. The bride and groom both seemed to believe that the wedding would be opposed if their plans were known at her home, but the record discloses no just ground upon which to charge him with having persuaded her against her will into a clandestine marriage. Every detail, in so far as not suggested by her, was arranged with her free and full approval. The plaintiff's sister advised her to tell her mother, but she thought it best not to do so. As soon as the ceremony was over she telephoned the news to her mother, and the latter was greatly affected, and at once became hysterical. The bride's father then came to the telephone and told her that she had about killed her mother, and ordered her never to put her foot in the home again. Both the father and the mother were very angry, and shortly afterwards used some very violent and threatening language with reference to the plaintiff, which need not in terms be repeated here.

After spending some hours in the city and having lunch at the Richmond Hotel with some of his relatives, the plaintiff and his wife started on the wedding trip which they had previously planned, taking an afternoon train for Washington. While on that train they received a telegram, addressed to Mrs. T. G. Walker and sent by John Ratcliffe, in these words:

"Your mother is dying. I would advise you to return to my house."

This telegram was sent at the suggestion of the sister, Alice Ratcliffe, made to John Ratcliffe over the telephone some hours after he had seen his mother and had left her to return to his business. About an hour later Frank Ratcliffe, who had just returned from a long trip, tried to reach Mrs. Walker with a telegram, which was never delivered, but which read as follows:

"Come home to-night, if possible. Mamma, I think, is dying. Everything will be all right."

At the time he sent this telegram his mother was sitting in a rocking chair on the porch. He says:

"She looked very peculiar, slightly hysterical, and I might say she was deranged, from her appearance."

He sent the telegram after his sister Alice had suggested that he "try to get Bettie, " meaning plaintiff's wife.

Under the influence of the telegram from John Ratcliffe, the plaintiff and his wife left the train at a station called Doswell, and obtained by telephone some Information from an aunt and from another brother of the plaintiff's wife, which indicated that the telegram was a fabrication, but they decided, largely upon his judgment and recommenda tion, that it would be best to return and investigate the situation. Upon their arrival in Richmond they went to his family home. While at supper there Mrs. Walker was called to the telephone to talk to her brother, Frank Ratcliffe, and their conversation resulted in an arrangement by which he was to meet her at Seventh and Broad streets, in Richmond, and take her to her father's home that night. He would not agree for her husband, the plaintiff, to bring or even accompany her, claiming that "his presence or the very mention of his name would mean instant death" to her mother. Mrs. Walker wanted her husband to accompany her, and she waved and smiled at him as she left with her brother and took the street car for her home, promising to call him up the next morning. It is significant, and is pertinent in this connection, that up to this moment of separation there had been no indication that she regretted her marriage or had any thought of giving up her husband. She was distressed about the attitude of her parents, but after she knew of that she willingly started on the wedding trip, and would have continued the journey after the telegram was received if her husband had insisted upon that course; in fact, the more probable conclusion from the evidence is that, but for his positive advice to the contrary, they would have gone on to Washington. On the train that afternoon, and also after she had returned to Richmond that evening, she was making a list of the names of friends for whom she intended announcements of her marriage. It is beyond question that the courtship of this couple had been a long and happy one, and that they had been devoted to each other. Another fact worthy of consideration in connection with the circumstances surrounding this parting between them at Seventh and Broad streets is that John Ratcliffe was present on that occasion, and claimed in the presence of plaintiff and his friends, and in rather conspicuous manner, that he was going to his own home in the city for the night, but, instead, went almost immediately to the home of his father in the country, arriving there about 30 minutes after Frank Ratcliffe and Mrs. Walker arrived.

Mrs. Walker found her mother in bed and, as she thought, in a sort of stupor. The record shows conclusively that her condition was not, in fact, and had not been at any time, alarming. It may have been made to appear otherwise to Mrs. Walker. There had been no reasonable ground at any time that day for saying that she was dying, and after Mrs. Walker arrived she, and not her mother, was the center of interest and attention on the part of the family. Her brother Frank told her, in substance, that night in the presence of her brother John that she could see for herself what her mother's condition was; that she had caused it; that he would take her back that night or the next day if shewanted to return to Walker, but that there was no middle ground, and she must choose between Walker and her family. Before this interview was concluded her father came in the room and told her that if Walker came there that night he would shoot him. Her mother had stated during the day that if Walker came on the place she would "cut his heart and liver out, " and had used other expressions indicating a high degree of temper and ill will towards the plaintiff. Her father and her brothers, Prank and John, had told Dr. Redd during the day that they were going to try to keep the plaintiff and his wife apart, or words to that effect. Mrs. Walker decided that night to give up her husband, taking from her finger her engagement ring and wedding ring and turning them over to one of her brothers. It was agreed that her brother Frank should take her out of the state to some place which was not fixed upon that night. Later on in the night, in compliance with a suggestion which they say came from Mrs. Walker, John and Frank went to the home of an attorney who had been theretofore acting as counsel for John Ratcliffe, and arranged with him to come to the Ratcliffe home the next day for a conference. This was the Friday night of the wedding day. The next day the plaintiff, who had requested to see his wife, was permitted to see her at John Ratcliffe's home, but was not allowed a private interview; both John and Frank Ratcliffe were there at the time, and, while the plaintiff was left for a few moments with his wife in the parlor, one or the other of the brothers was in a position to hear everything that was said all the time. John had in his possession, and delivered to her there, her engagement ring and wedding ring, and she in turn delivered them to her husband, and told him that she had made a mistake in marrying him, and wanted to be released. After Walker had left the house, John Ratcliffe commended Mrs. Walker's decision to go to Pittsburg, advising her to go on there and "forget everything except that she had two friends" (meaning himself and Frank) who would supply her needs, adding, however, that if she should decide to come back to Walker he had nothing to do with that. On the next day, which was Sunday, Frank took her to Pittsburg, where she lived under her maiden name in the family of an intimate friend of his until this suit was brought

After she went to Pittsburg the plaintiff, having secured her address, wrote her several times and visited her once, earnestly appealing to her to come back to him, but without avail. The Ratcliffe family kept in close touch with her, and her mother and brother Frank visited her shortly...