Odger's English Common Law

564 ACTIONS FOR LOSS OF SERVICE, &C.
take into their consideration all the circumstances of the case
and to award the parent damages for the immoral conduct of
the defendant, although this is strictly no part of the cause of
action. The action lies whenever the defendant has deprived
the plaintiff of the help and assistance which he was entitled
to receive from the person seduced. The relationship of
master and servant must, however, exist between the plaintiff
and the girl seduced at the time both of the seduction and of
the subsequent confinement ; without the former there is no
injuria, without the latter no damnum. 1 The girl herself has
no right of action, as she was a consenting party.
It is essential, however, that the father should show that
his daughter was in the habit of rendering him some personal
assistance or took some part in the daily work of the house-
hold, and that she was prevented by her confinement from
continuing to perform such services, or that she deserted her
home at the instigation of the defendant. If the daughter
was not residing at home but was in the employ of a third
person at the time of such confinement or desertion, only that
third person can sue ; for the loss of service falls only on
him. It cannot be denied that this state of the law
occasionally works great hardship, as such third person
generally refuses to sue. And where the girl was at the
time of her confinement in the service of the seducer himself,
no action can be maintained. On the other hand, our Courts
accept slight evidence of loss of service as sufficient to support
the action
;
2 and when once that foundation is laid, they allow
all the circumstances of the case to be taken into consideration
in calculating the amount of the damages. 3
This amount
is not in any way regulated by the smallness of the service
which the parent has lost.
A similar action formerly lay at common law at the suit of
a husband for the abduction of his wife, per quod consortium
amisit ; but its place is now usually taken by an application
for a writ of habeas corpus, or by a claim for damages against
a co-respondent in the Divorce Court.
1 Bavles v. Williams (1847), 10 Q. B. 725 ; Peters v. Jones, [1914] 2 K. B. 781.
2 Wkittourne v. Williams, [1901] 2 K. B. 722 ; Sent v. Maguire,\\%\T\ 2 I. R. 59.
3 See Hall v. Hollander (1825); i B. & C. at p. 663, and post, p. 1282
et seii.