Pic Of The Moment: Virginia Is Not For Lovers

[happyslug]

55. Again that quote is to Bundling not sex

All I can find on Graham vs Smith is a foot note in "Abbott's Cyclopedic Digest of All the Decisions of All the Courts ..., Volume 11" in regards to "Seduction"

http://books.google.com/books?id=smhJAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1043&lpg=PA1043&dq=Graham+vs+Smith,+1+Edm.Sel.Cas.+267+(N.Y.+1846),&source=bl&ots=u8ygJwR5PT&sig=mxMz2AvXCEncsRBO8quEC_wQVAs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NqHpUaeKF-XA4APusYGACw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Graham%20vs%20Smith%2C%201%20Edm.Sel.Cas.%20267%20(N.Y.%201846)%2C&f=false

The footnote cites Graham vs Smith but as a foot note to the following sentence:

"Connivance by a Parent is a bar, and his negligence may be considered in mitigation.

The Foot notes goes as follows:

"and his negligence respecting it. without actual asset, may be considered is estimating the damages"

I check Lexis, and the case is NOT in Lexis. Lexis has a lot of Cases of Seduction but there are all Court of Appeals cases, not trial cases. Graham vs Smith looks like a case no one ever filed an appeal on. It was still printed in Edmonds Selected Cases, but those are not on Lexis

This appeals to be a New York "Supreme Court" decision. In New York is what New York Calls its "Supreme Court" is what everyone else calls its "Court of Common Pleas" or "County Court" or if you from California "Superior Court", thus I can not read the actual opinion. Given that I can not say for certain what was discussed in that opinion, especially as to how bundling was done. Given the above comments from c1900 legal encyclopedia I suspect Bundling was mentioned, even discussed and if it lead to the seduction grounds to reduce any liability of the seducer to the father of the woman seduced. On the other hand, the decision could point out how bundling actually worked and was NOT a factor in that case (and the no appeal was taken, but it was a reported case, tends to make me think bundling was discussed but then held not to be a factor UNLESS it shows negligence by the father in permitting his daughter in being seduced.

Now, Lexis had several cases on Seduction and that a Father could recover from the Seducer for any lost of Service from his daughter due to the seduction (including the loss do to the daughter being pregnant). Those cases also found that the action of the Father for lost of Services of the daughter was independent of the daughter's right to file for support of the child from the seducer. The action was based on Master Servant law, i.e employment law, i.e. the harm incurred by the Father for loss of the ability of the Daughter to work. If the daughter was working for someone else, the Father could not recover, even if the employer was the seducer UNLESS the father loss some income due to the seduction (i.e. for example when the actual employer of the daughter, sent the daughter back to the father and refused to pay the father the contract wages he had promised, that lost of income the Father could recover from the seducer).

Reading those cases, make me thank that I live post WWII and those types of cases are no longer heard for most teenage women no longer contract with employers to pay part of their income to their parents.

Back to Graham vs Smith. From the above sentence and footnote I suspect the issue in Graham was that the father had left the seducer bundle with his daughter and the Seducer said that is when he had sex with her. The Daughter said yes she bundled with the seducer, but he talked her into sex LATER ON, outside the hearing of her father AFTER the bundling. Being a question of fact not law no appeal was possible (You can only appeal issues of law in the US, not issues of fact, which are reserved to the jury). Thus it was up to the Jury to decide which set of facts occurred and for that reason the Judge permitted in testimony of bundling and how it was done.

My problem is the sources I have seen mention the case, then mentioned that the case mentioned bundling but then does NOT cite the actual language of the case. It is clearly a case of Seduction, but how Bundling was involved is not reported in the cites I have seen. I suspect it was a factor as to WHEN the sex occurred the Seducer said he did it while bundled and thus the Father agreed to the sex, the Father saying, no sex was done while bundled for given the layout of the house and the location of the couple there was no way for them to have sex without him or someone else in the household knowing about it. As I said above, the above would be a finding of fact and once the Jury decided one way or another, that would end the case.

That bundling was an issue would support the argument that bundling in 1846 did NOT mean a board between the couple or that they were sewed in and could not touch, but that they laid together fully clothed, could talk and snuggle but no actual sex.

I would like to read the actual case for it would be a good source, but these comments about the case shows nothing.