Tort for the abduction of the plaintiff’s minor son, a child of nine years old.

At the trial in the superior court, before Lord, J., the plaintiff introduced in evidence a copy of a decree of this court, made three days before the abduction, upon a writ of habeas corpus brought by the mother for the purpose of obtaining access to the boy, ordering that the boy be remanded to his father’s custody.

The plaintiff, having testified that immediately after the abduction he caused search to be made in many places, and especially in Vermont and Canada, and that he employed many persons, detectives and others, for that purpose, was asked how much money he expended in this manner. The defendant objected to this question, but the judge ruled '< that the plaintiff’s duty was to make reasonable exertion for the recovery of his child to this end it was his duty to incur reasonable expenses, while there was probable cause to suppose he could thus obtain possession of him; that this did not give him the right to incm rash and unreasonable expenses at any time, nor any expenses when there was not reasonable ground to believe search would be successful;. for such length of time as search might properly and reasonably be conducted with prospect of success, he might make reasonable and proper expenditures of money, which the jury are authorized to take as part of the damages sustained by the plaintiff.” The judge thereupon admitted the evidence, confining it within the limits thus laid down.

It appeared that the defendant was arrested the day after the alleged abduction, and the plaintiff asked Mr. Ham, the deputy chief of the police, who was employed in this search, whether, after the defendant was arrested, he made any application to the defendant to know where the child was, and what reply he made to the application, stating that the question was put as bearing upon the question whether the efforts made and expenses incurred subsequently in searching for the child were reasonable and proper. The defendant objected to this question, byt it was admitted. The witness thereupon testified as follows : After Nickerson was arrested and brought to the police office, I told him he was charged with abduction. He said he knew nothing of the child. I told him we had evidence to prove it, but that all Mr. Rice wanted was the child, and if he would put us on the track where he left him, there should be no criminal or civil prosecution. He said he knew nothing about the child, and should say nothing about it.” The witness said that he was authorized to make this statement to the defendant by Mr. Rice. No objection was made to any particular part of the answer as not responsive to the question, or not admissible under the ruling.

…

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress