OTHER ACTIONS. False Imprisonment. In an action• against an individual for causing the, plaintiff to be taken into custody on a .charge of felony, evidgnce affording reason able and, probable cause of suspicion of the defendant's guilt is admissible in mitigation of damages ; Rogers v. Toliver, 139 Ga. 281, 77 S. E. 28, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 64, and note. Undoubtedly such evidence is admissible in mitigation of punitive damages ; Beckwith v. Bean, 98 U. S. 266, 25 L. Ed. 124, where it was also held that such evidence was not admissible in mitigation of compensatory damages and in both these conclusions many other courts concur, among which are: Holmes v. Blyler, 80 Ia. 365, 45 N. W. 756; Gamier v. Squires, 62 Kan. 321, 62 Pac. 1005; Roth v. Smith, 54 Ill. 431; loss of employ ment resulting from false imprisonment is an element of damage ; Stoecker v. Nathan son, 5 Neb. (Unof.) 435, 98 N. W. 1061, 70 L. R. A. 667.
Abduction of Child. The damages for ab duction of a minor child, are not limited to loss of services, but include compensation for expense and injury, and punitive damages for the' wrong done the parent in his affec tions and the destruction of his household; Howell v. Howell (N. C.) 78 S. E. 222, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 867.
For the Pollution of a Stream by coal dirt, the damages are the cost of removing the coal, dirt, unless it exceeds the value of the entire property ; there can be no recovery in excess of entire property value ; StevensOn v. Coal Co., 201 Pa. 112, 50 AU. 818, 88 Am: St. Rep. 805.
In an action for deceit the measure of damages is the difference between the real value of the property at the date of the sale 'and the price paid, together with interest and remunerations for outlays resulting from the defendant's conduct ; Sigafus v. Porter, 179 U. S. 116, 21 Sup. Ct. 34, 45 L. Ed. 113.
As to the measure of damages in actions against telegraph and telephone companies see TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE.
Injuries to Women. In a personal injury cause it is held that a married woman can not recover for loss of time, services or wag es or impaired capacity to work, in connec tion with: her household duties, since her belong, to her husband ; Norfolk Ry. & Light Co. v. Williar, 104 Va. 679, 52 S. E. 380 ; Denton v. Ordway, 108 Ia. 487, 79 N. W. 271. She cannot recover the' amount she paid for domestic service during her disabil ity; Frohs v. City of Dubuque, 109 Ia. 219, 80 N. W. 341; even where she is working outside to help support the family, it is held that she cannot recover for impaired ca pacity ; Plummer v. City. of Milan, 70 Mo. App. 598 ; Dawson v. City of Troy, 49 Hun 322, 2 N. Y. Supp. 137 ; or where she had not lived with her husband for 12 years ; Thur inger v. R. Co., 71 Hun 526, 24 N. Y. Supp. 1087: But where she is carrying on an in dependent business, the rule is otherwise ; Jordan v. R. Co., 138 Mass. 425 ; Fife v. City
of Oshkosh, $9 Wis. 540, 62 N. W. 541; Hea ley v. P, Ballantine & Sons, 66 N. J. L. 339, 49 Atl. 511. So if she is a deserted wife; Schmelzer v. Traction Co., 218 Pa. 29, 66 Atl. 1005. But other cases held that the loss of ability to labor is an element of dam age; Giffen v. City of Lewiston, 6 Idaho 231, 55 Pac. 545 ; Harmon v. R. Co., 165 Mass. 100, 42 N. E. 505, 30 L. R. A. 658, 52 Am. St. Rep. 499. A married woman may recover for bodily pain and mental suffering ; Bennett v. Bennett, 116 N. Y. 584, 23 N. E. 17, 6 L. R. A. 553; and for expenses attend ing her cure when paid from or chargeable to her own estate ; Schulte v. Holliday, 54 Mich. 73, 19 N. W. 752.
A miscarriage is an element of damage in an action for negligence; Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Ertrachter, 228 Ill. 114, 81 N. E. 816 ; Berger v. Ry. Co., 95 Minn. 84, 103 N. W. 724 ; Durham v. City of Spokane, 27 Wash. 615, 68 Pac. 383 ; Engle v. Sim mons, 148 Ala. 92, 41 South. 1023, 7. L. R. A. (N. S.) 96, 121 Am. St. Rep. 59, 12 Ann. Cas. 740; Witrak v. Electric Co., 52 App. Div. 234, 65 N. Y. Supp. 257 ; ignorance on the defendant's part of the woman's condition is no defence; Kimberly v. Howard, 143 N. C. 398, 55 S. E. 778, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 545. In Sullivan v. Ry. Co., 197 Mass. 512, 83 N. E. Am. St. Rep. 378, it was held that the negligence might be the proximate cause of the miscarriage, though conception had taken place seven months after the injury. Where there were two successive miscar riages after the injury, it was held that the second could be considered as bearing on the extent of the injury only and not in assess ing specific damages; Rapid Transit Ry. Co. v. Smith, 98 Tex. 553, 86 S. W. 322. Com pensation may be given for mental suffering because of the probable deformity of the child, and for disappointment from the birth of a deformed child ; Prescott v. Robinson, 74 N. H. 460, 69 Atl. 522, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 594, 124 Am. St. Rep. 987. Only increased pain over the natural pain can be consider ed; Hawkins v. Ry. Co., 3 Wash. 592, 28 Pac. 1021, 16 L. R. A. 808, 28 Am. St. Rep. 72; but in Morris v. Ry. Co., 105 Minn. 276, 117 N. W. 500, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 598, it was held that the natural suffering, in case the child had been born in the natural course, cannot be deducted from the pain and suffering caused by the miscarriage. The loss of the child is not an element of dam age ; Witrak v. Electric R. Co., 52 App. Div. 234, 65 N. Y. Supp. 257; Morris v. Ry. Co., 105 Minn. 276, 117 N. W. 500, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 598 ; Sullivan v. Ry. Co., 197 Mass. 512, 83 N. E. 1091, 125 Am. St. Rep. 378. See, generally, Tunnicliffe v. R. Co., 102 Mich. 624, 61 N. W. 11, 32 L. R. A. 142 ; Morris v. Ry. Co., 105 Minn. 276, 117 N. W. 500, 17 ' L. R. A. (N. S.) 598; UNBORN CHILD.