¶1in his charge to the jury said that the injury complained of, was of the most atrocious and dishonourable nature, and called for exemplary damages. That such conduct went to destroy the peace and prospects, not only of the injured woman, but to render families and parents wretched by the ruin of their children. He told the jury that they were not to estimate the damages by any particular proof of suffering or actual loss; but to give damages for example’s sake, to prevent such offences in future; and also to allow liberal damages for the hr each of a sacred promise, and the great disadvantages which must follow to her through life: that in this case, they were to consider not only the past *78injury, but every consequence in future. He repeated in very strong terms his detestation of such conduct, and told the jui;y they were bound to no certain damages, but might give such a sum, as would mark their disapprobation, and be an example to others. That the defendant’s poverty, ought not to prevent exemplary damages; that poverty, was no justification nor extenuation of a crime like this; and it was their duty to measure the injury he had done, and not the purse of the defendant. That it would be better to treat him in this manner, than by giving small damages, to countenance an idea, that a man because poor, should be let loose on society. He concluded by observing, that it was a 3erious matter — involved in it, the protection of innocence; the prevention of disgrace to families, and the punishment of offences too common, and too often lightly treated.
1 N.J.L. 77
Coryell v. Colbaugh
Decided April 15, 1791
Supreme Court of New Jersey · decided 1791-04-15
THIS was an action on a promise of marriage, which was fully proved, with strong circumstances of aggravation. that an action had been brought by the plaintiff’s father against the defendant for getting her with child, loss of service fkc. and upon its being left to arbitrators, they by consent of parties, had gone into the whole inquiry, both as to the promise of marriage and seduction, and had awarded the exemplary sum of £ 75-3-9 for which judgment was entered.
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“damages for example's sake, to prevent such offences in future”
quoted by 1 later decision, including Groshek v. TREWIN
“of the most atrocious and dishonourable nature”
quoted by 1 later decision, including Groshek v. TREWIN
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1791-04-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2023
1 district · 6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →