Talk:Criminal conversation
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Venues
[edit]The article states that cases These suits were conducted at the Court of the King's Bench in Westminster Hall but there were certainly also cases held at assizes: see for example the case of Waterhouse vs Colonel Berkeley, Malcolm Hall (2008). Murders & Misdemeanours in Gloucestershire 1820-1829. Amberley Publishing. pp. 21–31. ISBN 978-1-84868-046-3. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Wives were their husbands' property??
[edit]This is in the article:
- It was based upon compensation for the husband's loss of property rights in his wife, the wife being regarded as his chattel.[1] Historically a wife could not sue her husband for adultery, as he could not be her chattel if she was already his.
- [1] Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed. 1957.
This seems like it knows what is talking about as it uses legal jargon. But I am sure husbands having "property rights" in their wives not true, or at least a twisting of words of how they were used at the time. The reference doesn't give a page number. I found a copy of Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition online, and this is all it has to say about "criminal conversation":
- CRIM. CON. An abbreviation for "criminal conversation," of very frequent use, denoting adultery. Rash v. Pratt, 111 A. 225, 228, 1 W.W.Harr.,
- Del., 18; Hargraves v. Ballou, 47 R.I. 186, 131 A.
- 643, 645.
- The term in its general and comprehensive sense, is synonymous with "adultery" ; but in its more limited and
- technical signification it may be defined as adultery in the
- aspect of a tort. Turner v. Heavrin, 182 Ky. 65, 206 S.W.
- 23, 4 A.L.R. 562.
- CRIMINAL:
- Criminal conversation
- Defilement of the marriage bed, sexual intercourse of an outsider with husband or wife, or a
- breaking down of the covenant of fidelity. Young
- v. Young, 236 Ala. 627, 184 So. 187, 190, 191. Adultery, considered in its aspect of a civil injury to
- the husband entitling him to damages; the tort
- of debauching or seducing of a wife. Often abbreviated to crim. con.
- CONVERSATION. Manner of living; habits of
- life; conduct; as in the phrase "chaste life and
- conversation." Bradshaw v. People, 153 Ill. 156,
- 38 N.E. 652. Criminal conversation means seduction of another man's wife, considered as an
- actionable injury to the husband. Prettyman v.
- Williamson, 1 Pennewill (Del.) 224, 39 A. 731;
- Crocker v. Crocker, C.C.Mass., 98 F. 702.
- INJURY:
- Personal injury. A hurt or damage done to a
- man's person, such as a cut or bruise, a broken
- limb, or the like, as distinguished from an injury
- to his property or his reputation. The phrase
- is chiefly used in connection with actions of tort
- for negligence. Norris v. Grove, 100 Mich. 256,
- 58 N.W. 1006; State v. Clayborne, 14 Wash. 622,
- 45 P. 303. But the term is also used (chiefly in
- statutes) in a much wider sense, and as including
- any injury which is an invasion of personal rights,
- and in this signification it may include such injuries as libel or slander, criminal conversation
- with a wife, seduction of a daughter, and mental
- suffering. McDonald v. Brown, 23 R.I. 546, 51 A.
- 213, 58 L.R.A. 768, 91 Am.St.Rep. 659.
- LEGENITA. A fine for criminal conversation
- with a woman. Whart.Lex. See Legruita.
So the reference doesn't support what it is supposed to. Count Truthstein (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I just changed it. Why would anyone not? I mean whenever i see something that is not in the cite given I change it to match the cite. Have I acted inappropriately?Winfredtheforth (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Worsely v. Bisset
[edit]The article states that Sir Richard Worsely lost his crim. con. suit against George Bisset. This isn't correct.
The jury did find that crim. con. had occurred; Lady Worsely's lawyers admitted it. But rather than the £20,000 that Richard claimed, the jury awarded him one shilling (12 pence). Technically, he won, but his reputation was destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.116.134.107 (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)