What is the gist of the action? That the defendant has enticed a man away who stood in the relation of servant to the plaintiff, and by whom he was to be benefited. I think the point turns upon the jury finding that the persons enticed away were employed by the plaintiff as his journeymen. It might perhaps have been different if the men had taken work for everybody, and after the plaintiff had employed them the defendant had applied to them, and they had given the preference to him in point of time. For if a man lived in his own house and took in work for different people, it would be a strong ground to say that he was not the journeyman of any particular master; but the gist of the present action is that they were attached to this particular master.
Aston, J. It is clear that a master may maintain an action against any one for taking and enticing away his servant, upon the ground of the interest which he has in his service and labor.[[561]] And even supposing, as my lord has stated, that the servant did live in his own house, if he were employed to finish a certain number of shoes for a particular person by a fixed time, and a third person enticed him away, I think an action would lie. If not, it might be of very bad consequence in trade. He is a servant quoad hoc, and though the seducer and enticer is much the worse, yet the law inflicts a penalty upon workmen leaving their work undone.
Mr. Justice Willes and Mr. Justice Ashhurst concurred.
Per Curiam. Let the postea be delivered to the plaintiff.[[562]]
EAGER v. GRIMWOOD
In the Exchequer, June 1, 1847.
Reported in 1 Exchequer Reports, 61.
Trespass for assaulting and debauching the daughter and servant of the plaintiff, whereby she then became pregnant, &c., and the plaintiff lost and was deprived of her services. Plea: Not guilty.
At the trial before Pollock, C. B., at the London sittings after last Michaelmas term, the following facts appeared: The connection between the defendant and the plaintiff’s daughter took place for the first time two days after Christmas day, 1844. In June, 1845, the plaintiff’s daughter gave birth to a child, which, according to the evidence of a surgeon, was a full-grown child. It also appeared that the plaintiff had been put to some expense in consequence of his daughter’s illness. The learned Chief Baron left it to the jury to say whether or no the defendant was the father of the child; and he told them that if they believed he was not the father of the child, they should find a verdict for him. The jury having found for the defendant.
Prentice obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection, against which
Humfrey showed cause.
Prentice, in support of the rule.[[563]]