SEDUCTION, a term generally used in the special sense of wrongfully inducing a woman to consent to sexual intercourse. The action for seduction of an unmarried woman in England stands in a somewhat anomalous position. The woman seduced has herself no right of action, for she must have given her consent to the connection, and volenti non fit injuria. The foundation of the action is the relationship of master and servant, and the plaintiff in order to succeed must prove that the woman seduced was at the time of the seduction in his service, actual or con structive, and that he has lost her services by reason of her con finement and illness (Peters v. Jones, 1914, 2 K.B. 781). A father may maintain the action in respect of a daughter who is under 21 years of age and living with him, without proof of any actual services rendered, for he has a right to the services of his daugh ter, so that she is constructively in his service (Terry v. Hutchin son, 1868, L.R. 3 Q.B• 599). But if the daughter is over 21 years of age, the father must give evidence of actual services rendered by the daughter, although such slight services as making tea, or looking after children are sufficient evidence of service to sup port the action (Bennett v. Allen, 1787, 2 T.R. 166). On the other hand, if the girl is not living at home but was in the service of a third person, only that third person can sue, since the loss of service falls on him (Carr v. Clarke, 1818, 2 Chitty 26o). In such a case the mere fact that the girl comes home at intervals and on such occasions does some of the household work does not create the relationship of master and servant between her father and her self so as to enable the father to maintain an action (Williams v. Whitbourne, 1901, 2 K.B. 722). Where the girl was at the time of the seduction in the service of the seducer himself no action is maintainable, unless the hiring was merely a pretence and con trivance for the purpose of seduction (Speight v. Oliveira, 1819, 2 Stark, 493).
The relationship of master and servant must have existed at the time of seduction and also at the time of the illness consequent upon it that deprives the plaintiff of the girl's services. Thus where a girl was in service as a governess and was seduced by the defend ant whilst on a four days' visit, with her employer's permission, to her widowed mother, but at the time of her confinement was in the service of another employer, it was held that no action lay (Hedges v. Tagg, 1872, L.J. Ex. '169). Similarly where a girl was seduced whilst living at home with her father and mother, but the father died before her confinement, it was held that the widowed mother, to whom she rendered ordinary household duties after her father's death, could not maintain an action, as the girl was not in her service at the time of the seduction but in that of the father (Hamilton v. Long, 1903, 2 Ir.R. 407; affirmed, 1905, 2 Ir.R. 252).
Although the action is nominally for loss of service, the plaintiff can, if a parent, recover in addition to the actual loss sustained damages for distress and anxiety of mind (Andrews v. Askey, 1837, 8 C. and P. 7), for the loss of the society of the daughter seduced, and for the dishonour which he receives (Bedford v. Af cKowl, 180o, 3 Esp. 119). But where the action is not brought by a parent, the plaintiff can only recover the actual pecuniary loss which he has sustained (McKenzie v. Hardinge, 1906, 23 T.L.R.
15) .
The defendant can, in mitigation of damages, give evidence as to the general loose character of the girl (Carpenter v. Wall, 1840, I I A. and E. 803), and also call witnesses to prove that they have had sexual intercourse with the girl previously to the seduction (V erry v. W atkins, 1836, 7 C. and P. 3o8).
As to seduction of a married woman, the old action for criminal conversation was abolished in England, but not in Ireland, by the Divorce Act 1857 which substituted for it a claim for damages against the co-respondent in a divorce suit; but if a married woman were living apart from her husband in her father's house, and giving her services to her father in the slightest degree, an action for seduction would lie. Seduction in England is not as a rule a criminal offence. But a conspiracy to seduce a woman is indictable at common law. And the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (which extends to the United Kingdom) makes it a felony to seduce a girl under the age of 13, and a misdemeanour to seduce a girl between 13 and 16 (ss. 4, 5). The same act also deals severely with the cognate offences of procuration, abduction and unlawful detention of a girl or woman with intent that she should be carnally known by any man (ss. 2, 7, 8). The Children Act 1908 gives a further protection to young people, enacting that if any person having the custody, charge or care of a girl under the age of 16 causes or encourages the seduction of that girl, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and be liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding two years (s. 17).