I can't find the court case in question since we only have her first name to go by.
I did find one of the first U.S. cases to deal with this type of tort. First block is the case history from the lower court and then the SC reversal. I found it entertaining.
COOK vs. WOOD.
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA
30 Ga. 891; 1860 Ga. LEXIS 226
June, 1860, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Case, from Harris county. Tried before Judge WORRILL, October Term, 1858.
This action was brought by Henry Wood against Elijah Cook, to recover damages of the latter for criminal conversation had with plaintiff's wife. The defendant plead the general issue; and also, that for years previous to the institution of the suit, plaintiff's wife was a person of loose habits, notorious bad character, and a common prostitute.
On the trial, the plaintiff proved by one Ransome Wood, the guilt of defendant as alleged.
The defendant, on his part, proved by John Moore, that one Tomlinson had intercourse with plaintiff's wife in 1855, and that he witnessed the act. By Joseph Dent, that plaintiff once told him that he believed Edward Nance had had intercourse with his wife. The witness also stated that he once heard Wood abuse his wife and call her a whore, that he was quite angry at that time, and greatly excited.
Thomas Moore testified, that as far back as 1855, he had heard plaintiff say he believed Cook kept his wife, or words to that effect; he had also heard him say Cook was the man that had destroyed his peace and ruined his happiness at home. Dent stated that he knew Mrs. [**2] Wood before plaintiff moved to Harris, and that her character was bad. He also stated that plaintiff told him that when he, plaintiff, first went to Harris, he could not borrow five dollars from him, and he thought he was a mean man; but afterwards his wife could get as much money from him (Cook) as she wanted and he thought he was a very fine man.
In rebuttal, it was proved by James Biggers that he had heard things said about Mrs. Wood both ways, but knew nothing against her. That she was received into good society, and associated with the best people in the neighborhood. Moore testified that she was a member of the Baptist Church in good standing; that there were reports against her, which had caused him to watch her close, and he had never discovered anything improper in her conduct.
When the evidence closed, counsel for defendant asked the Court to charge the jury that, "it is not always necessary that the husband be proved to have connived at the particular acts of adultery charged, for if he suffers his wife to live as a prostitute, and have criminal intercourse with third persons, he can have no action--it is damnum obsque injuria." This charge the Court refused to [**3] give.
The jury found a verdict for plaintiff for $ 2,000.00, and thereupon counsel for defendant moved for a new trial, on several grounds, of which the above refusal to charge was the chief.
The rule was refused, and counsel for defendant excepted.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant sought review of an order from a trial court, Harris County (Georgia), which entered judgment on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff in his action to recover pecuniary damages from defendant for criminal conversation the later allegedly had with plaintiff's wife and which denied defendant's motion for a new trial.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff asserted that he was entitled to damages allegedly incurred by defendant's relationship with plaintiff's wife. Defendant asserted that the wife was a person of loose habits, was a notorious bad character, and was a common prostitute. Plaintiff proved his case through a witness who was the son of the wife, and defendant offered several witnesses who testified as to both the wife's adulterous actions with other and plaintiff's forbearance of the same. In reversing, the court agreed with defendant that the trial court erred in refusing to give a jury instruction on the law relating to the bar of an action based upon a husband's passive sufferance or connivance in a wife's adulterous behavior. The court found sufficient evidence to warrant such an instruction, noting, among other things, that plaintiff lived with his wife on defendant's property, was aware that she received money from him, knew that she closely associated with a known prostitute, and that he had offered to defendant, in exchange for a settlement of property, to claim as his own one of the wife's children, whose paternity was otherwise subject to question.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the trial court's judgment.
Having the Supreme Court in Georgia rule against him in 1860 because his wife was a whore must not have been good for his standing in the community.
