TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gore v. Curtis

Eliza C. Gore v. Frank Curtis

Gore v. Curtis, 17 A. 314 (Me. 1889)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 19, 1889
Judges
Danforth, Emery, Haskell, Peters, Virgin, Walton
Citations
17 A. 31481 Me. 4031889 Me. LEXIS 46
Headnotes
Trespass. Evidence. Beputation. Specific acts. In trespass for assault upon and for soliciting the plaintiff, a married woman,, to commit adultery with the defendant, specific acts of unchastity by her with other men prior to the alleged assault can not he shown in defense.
Summary
On exceptions. This was an action for indecent assault and battery upon the plaintiff, a married woman. The defendant offered testimony to prove specific acts of nnchastity on the part of the plaintiff with other men than the defendant prior to the alleged assault. The presiding justice ruled that such evidence was inadmissible, but allowed the defendant to submit evidence of the plaintiff’s general reputation for chastity. To this ruling the defendant excepted. Verdict for plaintiff for $112.00. Counsel contended the defendant should have been permitted to show plaintiff’s actual character, first, as bearing upon the question of damages, and second, as bearing upon the force which is alleged by the declaration to have been used. Rule sought to be declared applies peculiarly to assaults of this character; and courts have recognized the force of its reason. 1 Whart. Ev., § 51; Abbott’s Trial Ev., pp. 65.1, 682; Waterman 'Tresp., § 271; People v. Abbott, 19 Wend. 192. The objection of raising collateral issues, by admitting specific acts, may be answered by the fact that plaintiff, if innocent, can disprove the few instances which could be adduced in testimony more readily by her own evidence than by rebutting her general reputation for unchastity, and on which question she can not testify. Counsel also cited: Treat v. Browning, 4 Day, 408; State v. Johnson, 28 Vt. 512; State v. Reed, 39 Id. 417; Watry v. Berber, 18 Wis. 500 (S. C. Am. Dec. 789); citing People v. Benson> 6 •Cal. 221; 2 Greenl. Ev., § 556; State v. Murray, 63 N. C. 31. Counsel cited: Peterson v. Morgan, 116 Mass. 350, 352; Qom. ■v. Kendall, 113 Mass. 210; Greenl. Ev., vol. 1, § 55, and cases .cited; Abbott’s Trial Ev. 672, 674; Phillips Ev., vol. 1, p. 176, .2d ed., Id. vol. 2, 339 note.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Haskell

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Haskell, J.

In trespass for assault upon and for soliciting 'the plaintiff, a married woman, to commit adultery with the defendant, can he be permitted to show specific acts of unchastity ,by her with other men prior to the alleged assault, in mitigation of damages, and to rebut the probability of alleged force ?

*405 At the trial the court excluded the evidence, and the learned counsel for the defendant in the opening paragraph of their brief say: “We are aware that the ruling was in accordance with the

law of half a century ago.” The court is not aware of any change in the law since that time. No statute intervenes; nor is the reason for the rule less cogent now than it always has been; whereby the rule is obsolescent, even.

Evidence tending to show the plaintiff’s general reputation for unchastity was admitted. Persons seeking damages in actions of this sort must be prepared to defend their general character; but are not required to come ready to explain the various specific questionable acts of their lives, and to rebut false accusations, of which they can have no premonition. It would be a hard rule that would compel a plaintiff to defend every act of his life, as the price of justice.

Exceptions overruled.

Peters, C. J., Walton, Danforth, Virgin and Emery, JJ'., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1917: 11919: 11928: 11956: 119172026peak 1917 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Verdi v. Donahue99 A. 1041 (Conn. 1917)
  2. Lester v. Gay117 So. 211 (Ala. 1928)
  3. Nickolay v. Orr172 N.W. 222 (Minn. 1919)
  4. State v. Dipietrantonio122 A.2d 414 (Me. 1956)

Most recent

  1. State v. Dipietrantonio122 A.2d 414 (Me. 1956)
  2. Lester v. Gay117 So. 211 (Ala. 1928)
  3. Nickolay v. Orr172 N.W. 222 (Minn. 1919)
  4. Verdi v. Donahue99 A. 1041 (Conn. 1917)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list