Crose v. Rutledge

Citations

• 81 Ill. 266

Syllabus

<p>1. Criminal conversation—character of defendant not involved. In. an action for the seduction of the plaintiff’s wife, the character of the wife for chastity is involved, but not that of defendant, and it is error to permit the plaintiff to give general evidence of the defendant’s character for chastity, in chief.</p> <p>2. Evidence—character of parties. As a general rule, it is not competent to give evidence of the general character of the parties, with a view of raising a presumption disadvantageous and unfavorable to either of them.</p> <p>3. Same—record of divorce in action for seduction. In a suit for the seduction of a wife, the record of divorce between the plaintiff' and his wife is not admissible in evidence, as it does not tend to prove or disprove any fact in issue.</p> <p>4. Witness—divorced wife. On the trial of an action for the seduction of a wife, she, although divorced, will not be permitted to testify for the defense to prove facts which came to her knowledge during the existence of the marital relation, hut as to facts occurring after the divorce, in which her former husband did not participate, and which affects her and the person calling her, only, she is a competent witness.</p> <p>5. Damages—whether excessive, in action for seduction. In an action for the seduction of the plaintiff’s wife, where the proof showed plaintiff to be of low character, and a visitor of houses of ill-fame, $1500 was held to he more damages than he was entitled to demand, hut yet it was not so excessive as to inspire a belief it was the'result of passion, prejudice or partiality.</p>