Seduction. - Adultery. - Breach of promise of Marriage.
Hislop v. Ker
Date: 15 July 1696 Case No. No 7.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Crocerig reported William Ker, writer, and Isobel Hislop, the stationer's daughter, who pursued him for refunding her damages, in so far as he had induced her, by false and flattering insinuations, to grant him the use of her body, and got her with child, and by letters promised to make her happy, only he behoved to conceal it from his friends for a while; and he made her give over her shop, and take a greater house; and, after all this, married another, and so perfidiously deceived her expectation; and all the casuists are clear that such a fraud obligat ad reparationem damni. Answered, He denied the child to be his, which she must prove, conform to the decision, January 1665, Barclay centra Bapty, No 26. p. 8413.; et is tantum est filius quem nuptiæ demonstrant, et vulgo quæesiti patrem habere non censenter; et semel mala, semper præsumitur in eodem genere; et mater tenetur lactare infantem, and can crave no expense eo nomine. The Lords found a woman's being got with child was no ground of action for damages, else a hundred such processes would be intented by whores; as also they thought that every promise and insinuation of marriage was not sufficient to found this action, because these are made at such times very lightly; yet, on the other hand, such debauchery and fraudulent designs ought not to pass undiscouraged, therefore, in such a circumstantiate case, the Lords declared they would allow damages against the man who had dolose induced a party to trust him, and referred it to the Reporter to examine the circumstances, and modify as he saw cause. By Moses's judicial law, such a man was bound stupratam aut dotare aut nubere.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 341. Fountainhall, v. 1. p. 728.
