BR
LAMO!
Jugé un acc masqu dans u trouva
PER the m $100 lfenc disgui two y them sight « that this s priest was d that s ordine docto suppl ments dant c voun prinei COUR wife her as the fe fight, there.
little d but In whl the € illega act of
r damlon the ared to quashed.
foundeil ntioned.
lointitt ie deteoliquid- Judge
*onfirm-
n'obtient s les frais
Oo revisé
ider the all point the dec
h appeal question urt, ani, ular the ne party s in this
is ‘4 j # & ,
DOMMAGES.—RESPONSABILITE
Cour SUPÉRIEURE, EN REVISION, Montréal, 31 mai 1873.
Présents : JOHNSON, MACKAY, BEAUDRY, JJ.
LAMOUREUX vs LAMOUREUX.
Jugé: Que le fait de prêter un masque à un enfant et de lui fournir un accoutrement grotesque ne rend pas la personne, qui a prêté ce masque, responsable des dommages causés par cet enfant en entrant dans un hôtel et v causant une grande frayeur à une femme qui s’y trouvait.
PER CURIAM : Defendant inscribes this case for review on the merits, judgment having been rendered against him for $100 in an action of damages brought by plaintiff against lfendant on the ground that his wife had, with his consent, disguised, with masks ond other grotesque accompaniments, two vouths of the village of Contrecæur, and had directed them to go to the principal hotel of the place, where the sight of them frightened plaintitf (who is a woman) so much that she fainted and fell senseless, and only recovered from this state after having been bled twice by x doctor, and the priest having actually been sent for, from the fear that she was dying. It was only some considerable time ufterwards that she recovered from this shock sufficiently to resume h:r ordinary occupations, having been under the care of another doctor in the meuntime. Defendant plends the general issue, supplemented by special denegations of the essential averments in the declaration. Judgment was given against defendant on the ground of fact that his wife had incitei the two voung men to go and frighten plaintiff, and on the legal principle which is a motive of the judginent, that a husband commun en biens is responsible for the wrong doing of his wife when he comes into court, and authorizes ani defends her as he has done in this case. Now, there is no evidence of the fact that defendant’s wife inciteil these boys to go and frighten plaintiff. She did not even know that plaintiff was there, The boys started from defendant’s house, and we have little doubt that his wife kne:v they were going to Gervais’; but we see no proof that they went there x: her suggestion. In which case, no doubt, she might be held responsible for the consequences, if she counselled or encouraged what was illegal, in itself, or dangerous in its nature ; but the innocent act of lending à mask to à boy or helping him to put on gro-
tesque apparel, can hardly in themselves mean that any serious mischief was intended, Defendant’s wife was, at most, only very remotely connected with this accident. The shopkeeper who sold the mask is only one step further removed from the business than this woman who lent it. As regards the liability of the husbund on the ground of having contested the suit, and defended his wifes conduct, or rather denied her being guilty of the act imputed to her, that is à question which we need not consider, as we hold, upon the evidence, that the wife herself did nothing to ineur linbility, and that consequently no liability can be extended to her husband. We will only observe that the wife is not even made à party to the case, so that it seems very difficult to consider that the husband is defending her, when she is not even attacked. The husband is really sued as responsible for the deliquency of his wife withont any proof or pretension that he approved or encouraged the proceeding at all. We are, therefore, under the necessity of reversing this judgment, with costsin both courts. (4 R. L., 539 : 3 KR. C, 73.)
