Margaret Davies against Williams
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 June 1847 |
| Date | 03 June 1847 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 116 E.R. 275
QUEENS BENCH
[726] margaret davies against williams. Thursday, June 3d, 1847. In trespass for seduction of plaintiff's daughter, per quod servitium amisit, it appeared that the daughter had been seduced while out at service, and that she left her service in a state of pregnancy, and returned home, where she was supported by the plaintiff until and after her confinement. Held that, as the implied relation of (b) Reported by H. Davison, Esq. 276 DAV(ES V. WILLIAMS 10 Q. B. 726. mistress and servant did not subsist between plaintiff and the daughter at the time of the seduction, the action was not maintainable. [S. C. 16 L. J. Q. B. 369; 11 Jur. 750. Observation applied, Hedges v. Tagg, 1872, L. R. 7 Ex. 286.] Trespass. The declaration stated that defendant, on, &c., and on divers other days, &o., with force and arms assaulted, debauched and carnally knew one Susannah Davies, then and still being the daughter and servant of the plaintiff; whereby the said daughter and servant of plaintiff then became pregnant and sick with child, and so continued for a long time, &c., and at the expiration thereof, to wit on, &c., and before the commencement of this suit, was delivered of the child with which she was so pregnant as aforesaid. By means of which several premises the plaintiff's said daughter and servant for a long time, to wit from tho day and year first aforesaid to the time of the commencement of this suit, became and remained unable to perform the necessary affairs and business of the plaintiff, so being her mother and mistress as aforesaid : &c. &c. Pleas : 1. Not guilty. 2. That the said Susannah Davies was not, at the said times when, &c., or any of them, the servant of the plaintiff, modo et forma. Issues thereon. On the trial, before Lord Denman C.J., at the Carnarvonshire Spring Assizes, 1846, it appeared that the plaintiff's daughter became with child by the defendant, while she was in his service, in November 1845, and that she left him in consequence of her pregnancy, and [726] went home to the plaintiff, who maintained her until her confinement and for some weeks afterwards. It was objected that, as the daughter was not in the plaintiff's service at the time of the seduction, trespass would not lie. His Lordship directed a nonsuit, and gave leave to move to enter a verdict for the plaintiff. Townsend, in Easter term following, obtained a rule nisi accordingly. Welsby...
To continue reading
Request your trial