Criminal conversation

Last updated
Crim. Con, a cartoon of Sir John Piers and Lady Cloncurry witnessed in an embrace by the painter Gaspare Gabrielli. The caption claims that the sketch "has been valued by 12 Connoisseurs at Twenty Thousand pounds!", a satirical allusion to the sum awarded to Lord Cloncurry by the jury in the ensuing criminal conversation court case of 1807. Crim. con.jpg
Crim. Con, a cartoon of Sir John Piers and Lady Cloncurry witnessed in an embrace by the painter Gaspare Gabrielli. The caption claims that the sketch "has been valued by 12 Connoisseurs at Twenty Thousand pounds!", a satirical allusion to the sum awarded to Lord Cloncurry by the jury in the ensuing criminal conversation court case of 1807.

At common law, criminal conversation, often abbreviated as crim. con., is a tort arising from adultery. "Conversation" is an old euphemism for sexual intercourse that is obsolete except as part of this term. [1] [2]

Contents

It is similar to breach of promise, a tort involving a broken engagement against the betrothed, and alienation of affections, a tort action brought by a spouse against a third party, who interfered with the marriage relationship. These torts have been abolished in most jurisdictions. The tort of criminal conversation was abolished in England and Wales in 1857; in Northern Ireland in 1939; in Australia in 1975; [3] and in the Republic of Ireland in 1981. [4] [5] Prior to its abolition, a husband could sue any man who had intercourse with his wife, regardless of whether she consented – unless the couple was already separated, in which case the husband could only sue if the separation was caused by the person he was suing. [6]

Criminal conversation still exists in parts of the United States, but the application has changed. At least 29 states have abolished the tort by statute and another four have abolished it judicially. [7] The tort of criminal conversation seeks damages for the act of sexual intercourse outside marriage, between the spouse and a third party. [8] Each act of adultery can give rise to a separate claim for criminal conversation.

History

The Secret History of Crim Con., 1808 etching by Thomas Rowlandson, lampooning various aspects of adulterous affairs The Secret History of Crim Con, Fig 1 MET DP873963.jpg
The Secret History of Crim Con., 1808 etching by Thomas Rowlandson, lampooning various aspects of adulterous affairs
1782 cartoon by James Gillray, depicting Sir Richard Worsley helping George Bisset view his wife, Seymour Fleming, naked in a bath-house. The caption reads: "Sir Richard Worse-than-Sly / Exposing his Wifes Bottom; - O fye!" Gillray - Sir Richard Worse-than-sly, exposing his wife's bottom; - o fye!.jpg
1782 cartoon by James Gillray, depicting Sir Richard Worsley helping George Bisset view his wife, Seymour Fleming, naked in a bath-house. The caption reads: "Sir Richard Worse-than-Sly / Exposing his Wifes Bottom; – O fye!"

England and Wales

Initially, criminal conversation was an action brought by a husband for compensation for the breach of fidelity with his wife. [9] Only a husband could be the plaintiff, and only the "other man" could be the defendant.

Suits for criminal conversation reached their height in late 18th- and early 19th-century England, where large sums, often between £10,000 and £20,000 (worth upwards of £1–2 million in today's terms), [10] could be demanded by the plaintiff for the debauching of his wife. These suits were conducted at the Court of the King's Bench in Westminster Hall,[ citation needed ] and were highly publicised by publishers such as Edmund Curll and in the newspapers of the day. [11] Although neither the plaintiff, defendant, nor the wife accused of the adultery was permitted to take the stand,[ citation needed ] evidence of the adulterous behaviour was presented by servants or observers.

The specific tort of criminal conversation (although not the principle that a cuckolded husband was entitled to compensation from his adulterer) was abolished under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857.

Notable cases

A number of sensational cases involving members of the aristocracy gained public notoriety in the 18th and early 19th centuries.

Australia

In the state of New South Wales, the tort of criminal conversation was abolished by section 92 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1899 (NSW). [18] In the state of Victoria, the tort of criminal conversation was abolished by section 146 of the Marriage Act 1915 (Vic), [19] although that act also provided for a husband to seek damages from a man guilty of adultery with his wife as part of divorce proceedings (sections 147–149). In Tasmania, action for criminal conversation was abolished in 1860 by the Matrimonial Causes Act (24 Vic, No 1), section 50. [20]

It was abolished under Commonwealth law by section 44(5) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959 (Cth), which was restated by section 120 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). [21]

Current usage: United States

The tort is still recognized in a number of states in the United States, although it has been abolished either legislatively or judicially in most. [8]

The tort has seen particular use in North Carolina. [8] In the case of Cannon v. Miller, 71 N.C. App. 460, 322 S.E.2d 780 (1984), the North Carolina Court of Appeals (the state's intermediate appellate court) abolished the tort of criminal conversation, as well as the tort of alienation of affections, in the state. However, the North Carolina Supreme Court summarily vacated the Court of Appeals' decision shortly thereafter, saying in a brief opinion that the Court of Appeal had improperly sought to overrule earlier decisions of the Supreme Court. Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985). In 2009, the General Assembly approved legislation which placed some limits on such lawsuits. [22] The bill was signed into law by Governor Bev Perdue on August 3, 2009, and is codified under Chapter 52 of the North Carolina General Statutes: [23]

§ 52-13. Procedures in causes of action for alienation of affection and criminal conversation. [24]

  1. No act of the defendant shall give rise to a cause of action for alienation of affection or criminal conversation that occurs after the plaintiff and the plaintiff's spouse physically separate with the intent of either the plaintiff or plaintiff's spouse that the physical separation remain permanent.
  2. An action for alienation of affection or criminal conversation shall not be commenced more than three years from the last act of the defendant giving rise to the cause of action.
  3. A person may commence a cause of action for alienation of affection or criminal conversation against a natural person only. [24]

Each of the three limitations arose from a recent North Carolina legal case involving the tort. In Jones v. Skelley, 195 N.C. App. 500, 673 S.E.2d 385 (2009), [25] the North Carolina Court of Appeals had held that the tort applies even to legally separated spouses. In Misenheimer v. Burris, 360 N.C. 620, 637 S.E.2d 173 (2006), the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations commences when the affair should have been discovered rather than when it occurred. In Smith v. Lee, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78987, the Federal District Court for the Western District of North Carolina noted that the question of whether an employer could be held liable for an affair conducted by an employee on a business trip was still unsettled in North Carolina.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation</span> Any communication that can injure a third partys reputation

Defamation, at a first approximation, is any form of communication that can injure a third party's reputation. This can include all modes of human-understandable communications: gestures, images, signs, words. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. For a communication to be considered defamatory, it must be conveyed to someone other than the defamed. Depending on the permanence or transience of the communication medium, defamation may be distinguished between libel and slander. It is treated as a civil wrong, as a criminal offence, or both. The exact definition of defamation and related acts, as well as the ways they are dealt with, can vary greatly between countries and jurisdictions; for example, whether they constitute crimes or not, to what extent insults and opinions are included in addition to allegations of facts, to what extent proving the alleged facts is a valid defence.

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

Champerty and maintenance are doctrines in common law jurisdictions that aim to preclude frivolous litigation:

This article addresses torts in United States law. As such, it covers primarily common law. Moreover, it provides general rules, as individual states all have separate civil codes. There are three general categories of torts: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.

Breach of promise is a common-law tort, abolished in many jurisdictions. It was also called breach of contract to marry, and the remedy awarded was known as heart balm.

In some common law jurisdictions, contributory negligence is a defense to a tort claim based on negligence. If it is available, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own negligence.

Loss of consortium is a term used in the law of torts that refers to the deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship due to injuries caused by a tortfeasor. In this context, the word consortium means "(the right of) association and fellowship between two married people". Damages may be claimed under three theories: incurred medical costs or those yet to be incurred by the plaintiff, the loss of an injured spouse's services, and loss of society.

An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor. The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken.

Alienation of affections is a common law tort, abolished in many jurisdictions. Where it still exists, an action is brought by a spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for damaging the marriage, most often resulting in divorce. The defendant in an alienation of affections suit is typically an adulterous spouse's lover, although family members, counselors, and therapists or clergy members who have advised a spouse to seek divorce have also been sued for alienation of affections.

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal relief and damages if it arises in connection with their own tortious act. Particularly relevant in the law of contract, tort and trusts, ex turpi causa is also known as the illegality defence, since a defendant may plead that even though, for instance, he broke a contract, conducted himself negligently or broke an equitable duty, nevertheless a claimant by reason of his own illegality cannot sue. The UK Supreme Court provided a thorough reconsideration of the doctrine in 2016 in Patel v Mirza.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Matrimonial Causes Act 1857</span> 1857 British divorce reform law

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Act reformed the law on divorce, moving litigation from the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts to the civil courts, establishing a model of marriage based on contract rather than sacrament and widening the availability of divorce beyond those who could afford to bring proceedings for annulment or to promote a private Bill. It was one of the Matrimonial Causes Acts 1857 to 1878.

<i>Letang v Cooper</i>

Letang v Cooper[1964] EWCA Civ 5 is an English Court of Appeal judgment, by which it was decided that negligently caused personal injury cannot be recovered under the trespass to the person, but the tort of negligence must be tried instead.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:

The tort of seduction was a civil wrong or tort in common law legal systems, and still exists in some jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort law in India</span> Aspect of Indian law

Tort law in India is primarily governed by judicial precedent as in other common law jurisdictions, supplemented by statutes governing damages, civil procedure, and codifying common law torts. As in other common law jurisdictions, a tort is breach of a non-contractual duty which has caused damage to the plaintiff giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which remedy is available. If a remedy does not exist, a tort has not been committed since the rationale of tort law is to provide a remedy to the person who has been wronged.

Divorcein South African law refers to the termination of a marital union, the canceling of the legal duties and responsibilities of marriage and the dissolving of the bonds of matrimony between a married couple. Divorce is unlike ANNULMENT, which declares the marriage null and void. Divorce requires the sanction of a court in a legal process. The legal process of divorce may also involve issues of alimony, child custody, child support, distribution of property and division of debt.

In English law, restitution of conjugal rights was an action in the ecclesiastical courts and later in the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes. It was one of the actions relating to marriage, over which the ecclesiastical courts formerly had jurisdiction.

The history of adultery in English law is a complex topic, including changing understandings of what sexual acts constituted adultery, unequal treatment of men and women under the law, and competing jurisdictions of secular and ecclesiastical authorities. Prosecution for adultery as such ceased to be possible in English law in 1970.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Heartbalm tort</span>

In the common law tradition, a heartbalm tort or heartbalm action is a civil action that a person may bring to seek monetary compensation for the end or disruption of a romantic or marital relationship. A heartbalm statute is a statute forbidding such actions.

Adultery laws are the laws in various countries that deal with extramarital sex. Historically, many cultures considered adultery a very serious crime, some subject to severe punishment, especially in the case of extramarital sex involving a married woman and a man other than her husband, with penalties including capital punishment, mutilation, or torture. Such punishments have gradually fallen into disfavor, especially in Western countries from the 19th century. In countries where adultery is still a criminal offense, punishments range from fines to caning and even capital punishment. Since the 20th century, criminal laws against adultery have become controversial, with most Western countries repealing them.

References

  1. "conversation, n." . Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press.(Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
  2. Collins English Dictionary. conversation.
  3. Family Law Act 1975 , Section 120.
  4. Urquhart, Diane (October 1, 2013). "Irish Divorce and Domestic Violence, 1857–1922". Women's History Review. 22 (5): 820–837. doi:10.1080/09612025.2013.767101. S2CID   143829004.
  5. Urquhart, Diane (October 30, 2012). "Ireland's criminal conversations". Études irlandaises (37–2): 65–80. doi: 10.4000/etudesirlandaises.3162 via journals.openedition.org.
  6. Irish Legal News (2018-08-31). "Irish Legal Heritage: Criminal Conversation – Irish Legal News". Irishlegal.com. Retrieved 2018-12-21.
  7. Gallo, Nancy R. (2004). Introduction to Family Law. Clifton Park, N.Y.: Thomson/Delmar Learning. pp. 131–132. ISBN   1-4018-1453-0.
  8. 1 2 3 Bruton, H. Hunter (January 2016). "The Questionable Constitutionality of Curtailing Cuckolding: Alienation of Affection and Criminal Conversation Torts".
  9. Black, Henry Campbell (1968) [1957]. Black's Law Dictionary (4th revised ed.). St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co. p. 448..
  10. "Computing 'Real Value' Over Time With a Conversion Between U.K. Pounds and U.S. Dollars, 1791 to Present". Measuring Worth. Retrieved 10 December 2019.
  11. Overton, Bill (2002). Fictions of Female Adultery, 1684–1890: theories and circumtexts . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. p.  127. ISBN   0-333-77080-3.
  12. Tillyard, Stella (2010). A Royal Affair: George III and His Troublesome Siblings. Random House. pp. 169–175. ISBN   978-1-4090-1769-1.
  13. Rubenhold 2008.
  14. Earl of Westmeath v Bradshaw, 1796: reported in Collected Speeches of John Philpot Curran (New York, 1811), p. 163
  15. Holton 2007.
  16. Mitchell, L. G. (1997). Lord Melbourne, 1779–1848. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 221–228. ISBN   0198205929.
  17. Atkinson 2012.
  18. "Matrimonial Causes Act 1899". www.legislation.nsw.gov.au. Retrieved 2020-02-23.
  19. "Marriage Act 1915". classic.austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 2020-02-29.
  20. "The Matrimonial Causes Act (24 Vic, No 1)". classic.austlii.edu.au. 4 October 1860. Retrieved 2020-03-01.
  21. "Family Law Act 1975 – Sect 120 Criminal conversation, adultery and enticement". classic.austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 2020-02-29.
  22. (broken link) [ permanent dead link ] at The Sun News of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
  23. "House Bill 1110 / Session Law 2009-400", General Assembly of North Carolina, retrieved 23 March 2010
  24. 1 2 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-13 (2010), (available at http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/House/PDF/H1110v7.pdf Retrieved 23-3-2010)
  25. "Jones v. Skelley". Justia Law.

Further reading