Moreau v. Frechette

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Moreau v. Frechette

2 R.I. Dec. 175

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedApril 30, 1926

DocketNo.60778

StatusPublished

This text of 2 R.I. Dec. 175 (Moreau v. Frechette) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moreau v. Frechette, 2 R.I. Dec. 175 (R.I. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

BLODGETT, J.

Heard upon motion for new trial after verdict for the plaintiff for $12,500.

Action for alienating the affections of the wife of plaintiff.

From the testimony the court feels that there was testimony upon which a jury would be justified in finding a verdict for the plaintiff.

There was little testimony as to the financial situation of the defendant. The verdict was large.

The plaintiff, as appears from the testimony, was a young man, married in 1916, and three children were born from the marriage. The year following the marriage they lived with his mother-in-law, and the plaintiff was an ordinary working man.

The verdict was evidently arrived at from a violent prejudice on the part of the jury against the defendant and was intended to punish him for his conduct. His own testimony was unsatisfactory and unbelievable. [176]*176It is difficult for the court to meas-sure damages in such a case. There is nothing in the testimony which assists in the matter. The defendant was carrying on a small .business as a pharmacist and also interested in manufacturing tennis rackets.

For Plaintiff: T. L. Carty. For Defendant: J. E. Brennan.

Motion for new trial denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI