68. Implied Promise.-The employment of a physician in this country raises an implied promise to pay for his services. The plaintiff in an action for malpractice may allege that defendant was a physician, and as such was called on by the plaintiff, and undertook as such to administer medicines, etc. This is sufficient to raise a duty of skill and care on his part: Peck v. Martin, 17 Ind. (Kerr) 115. Evidence of reputed skill held to be material: Carpenter v. Blake, 50 N. Y. 696. No. 370. [TITLE.] xvi. Against Surgeon, for Malpractice. The plaintiff complains, and alleges: by accident broke his leg. II. That he then employed the defendant, who is a surgeon, as such surgeon, for reasonable reward to be paid therefor, to set and heal the same. III. That the defendant so negligently and unskillfully conducted himself, in attempting to set said leg of the plaintiff, that [here state the consequences, as, inflammation ensued, and the plaintiff was compelled to have his leg amputated]. IV. That by reason of said negligence and unskillfulness, the plaintiff was made sick, and was kept ....... months from attending to his business as [engineer], and was compelled to pay and did pay .... dollars expense for nursing, and is permanently a cripple; to his damage dollars. [Demand of Judgment.] CHAPTER VI. FOR VIOLATION OF PERSONAL RIGHTS. No. 371. i. Against Officers of an Election, for Refusing Plaintiff's Vote. The plaintiff complains, and alleges: in and for the ........ pre ...... ..... I. That the defendants were the inspectors and judges of an election duly held at cinct in the city of.. ....., on the ........... day of ... 187., for the purpose of electing [state what officers], and being duly appointed and qualified as such inspectors and judges, the defendants had the polls open for said election at No. street [or at the school-house] in said town [or city] between the hours of ........ and the day aforesaid. ........ ... on II. That the plaintiff then was, and for the space of. of .... months had been a citizen of the State of.. and then was and for the space of ........ days had been a resident in said town [or ward, or otherwise, according to the statute], and was a legal elector at said election [or that the plaintiff was registered in the grand register of the city and county of and was enrolled on the poll lists of the said precinct]. ....... " ...... III. That as such elector, the plaintiff, while the polls were so open, duly offered to the defendants his vote or ballot for the election of [insert what officers he offered to vote for, as Sheriff, etc.], in and for said town, and requested them to receive the same. IV. That the defendants, not regarding their duty, wrongfully refused to receive or deposit the same, although they and each of them then well knew he was a qualified voter, whereby he was deprived of his vote at said election, to his damage........dollars. [Demand of Judgment.] 1. Facts must be Alleged.-In an action for refusing plaintiff's vote, the particular facts upon which plaintiff's right to vote depends, must be alleged: Curry v. Cabliss, 37 Mo. 330. 2. Malice. The averment of malice is unnecessary: Jeffries v. Ankeny, 11 Ohio, 372; Thatcher v. Hawk, Id. 376; Lincoln v. Hapgood, 11 Mass. 350; Capen v. Foster, 12 Pick. 485; Osgood v. Bradley, 7 Greenlf. Rep. 421. [TITLE.] No. 372. ii. For Criminal Conversation. The plaintiff complains, and alleges: I. That A. B. is, and at the times hereinafter mentioned was, the wife of the plaintiff. II. That on or about the....day of........, 187. [the day or about the day the first act of adultery can be proved], and on other days after that day, defendant, wrongfully contriving and intending to injure the plaintiff, and to deprive him of the comfort, society, aid, and assistance of his wife [forcibly and without the consent of the said A. B.], wickedly, willfully, and maliciously debauched and carnally knew the said A. B., without the privity or consent of the plaintiff. III. That by means of the premises, the affection which the said A. B. theretofore had for the plaintiff was alienated and destroyed, and the plaintiff was deprived of the comfort, society, aid, and assistance which he otherwise would have had from the said A. B., and has suffered great distress of body and mind, to his great damage....... dollars. [Demand of Judgment.] 3. Character of Action.-An action by the husband, for crim. con., is an action for injury to person: 1 Chitty Pl. 137; 2 Id. 265; 2 Kent. 129; 3 Blackst. Com. 138; Delamater v. Russell, 4 How. Pr. 234; 2 Code R. 147. 4. Contriving and Intending.-The intention is material: Hutcheson v. Peck, 5 Johns. 196. 5. Marriage. In an action for criminal conversation, the plaintiff must prove an actual marriage: 4 Burr. 2057; Peake's Law of Ev. 300; Phil. on Ev. (7th Ed.) 206; Selw. N. P. 14, 16; see, also, 2 Chitt. Pl. 643, note f. 6. Without Privity or Consent of Plaintiff.-See Smith v. Masten, 15 Wend. 270. [TITLE.] No. 373. iii. For Enticing Away Plaintiff's Wife. The plaintiff complains, and alleges: I. That A. B. is, and at the times hereinafter mentioned was, the wife of the plaintiff. ........ 187., while II. That on or about the....day of..... the plaintiff was living and cohabiting with and supporting her, at........, and while they were living together happily as man and wife, the defendant, wrongfully contriving and intending to injure the plaintiff, and to deprive him of her comfort, society, and assistance, maliciously enticed her away from the plaintiff's and her then residence in to a separate residence in..... and has ever since there detained and harbored her, against the consent of the plaintiff. ........ III. That by reason of the premises, the plaintiff has been and still is wrongfully deprived by the defendant of the comfort, society, and aid of his said wife, and has suffered great distress of body and mind in consequence thereof, to his damage. dollars. [Demand of Judgment.] 7. Allegation that Defendant Knew.-In an action for debauching a wife or servant, it is not necessary to allege or prove that the defendant knew that the female was the wife or servant of the plaintiff; though in an action for seducing away or harboring a wife or servant, such allegation and evidence are necessary: Peake C. N. P. 55; Peak's Law of Ev. 134; Willes, 577; see 2 Chitt. Pl. 642, n. e; see Hermance v. James, 32 How. P. 142. 8. Form. For a form nearly similar, see Scherpf v. Szadecky, 1 Abb. Pr. 366. [TITLE.] No. 374. iv. For Debauching a Daughter. The plaintiff complains, and alleges: ..... ... I. That said defendant, unjustly intending to injure said plaintiff, and to deprive him of the services and assistance of the daughter and servant of said plaintiff, did, on the day of 187., and on divers other days between that day and the commencement of this action, debauch and carnally know the said ... ....., then and there, and before and since, the daughter and servant of the said plaintiff; whereby the said . . . . . ... became pregnant and sick with child, and so remained for a long space of time, to wit, for the space of nine months thence next following; at the expiration whereof the said......... was delivered of the child with which she was pregnant as aforesaid. II. That by means of the premises, the said. for a long space of time, to wit [one year], was unable to do the needful business of the said plaintiff, he, the said plaintiff, so being the father and master of the said ...... and the said plaintiff lost the services of the said , during all that time; and the said plaintiff was put to great expense, and did pay out a large sum, to wit, the sum of .. dollars, in and about the nursing and taking care of the said his daughter and servant, and in and about the delivery of said child, to his damage in the sum of ........ dollars. [Demand of Judgment.] 9. Connivance.-The connivance of the father in the act of seduction will wholly bar his action, but where the defense is omitted to be pleaded, it will be waived: Travis v. Barger, 24 Barb. 614. 10. Daughter Temporarily Absent. This action is maintainable, though the daughter be temporarily absent at the time of seduction: Lipe v. Eisenlerd, 32 N. Y. 229; see, also, ante, p. 65 and sec. 375 Cal. Code C. P. 11. Debauching and Beating a Daughter.-A parent, in that character merely, cannot support an action for debauching or beating his daughter, which is only sustainable in respect to the supposed loss of service, some slight evidence of which must in general be adduced: 5 East, 45; 5 T. R. 360; see 2 Chitt. Pl. 643, n. 9; White v. Nellis, 31 N. Y. 405. 12. Distress of Body and Mind.-The fact that the plaintiff has suffered great distress of body and mind, is a good ground of damages: Duin v. Wycoff, 7 N. Y. 191. 13. Father, Action by.-A father may maintain an action for the seduction of his daughter, under twenty-one years of age, although she was not living with him at the time, if he has not by his own act destroyed his right to control her services: Greenwood v. Greenwood, 28 Md. 369. So for that of a daughter over twenty-one, and not living with him, if he thereby loses actual services due to him; and services rendered will be presumed to be due if he continues to exercise authority over her, and she to submit: Sutton v. Huffman, 3 Vroom, 58; Lipe v. Eisenlerd, 32 N. Y. 229. 14. Female Seduced cannot Maintain Action.--The female seduced cannot maintain an action for her own seduction: Hamilton v. Lomax, 26 Barb. 615; 6 Abb. Pr. 142. But by sec. 374, Cal. Code C. P., an unmarried female may maintain the action: See ante, p. 65; see also Koenig v. Nott, 8 Abb. Pr. 384. Under a similar statute in Indiana it was held that the complaint must allege that the plaintiff was unmarried: Thompson v. Young, 51 Ind. 599, see Form No. 376, post. A seduction, where it exists, is frequently alleged in a suit for breach of promise of marriage in aggravation of damages, but not as a separate cause of action. It is doubtful if breach of promise of marriage and seduction could be joined as distinct causes of action, even under a statute authorizing the female to sue for seduction, as the one arises from contract and the other from tort. 15. Full Age.-A father may maintain an action for seduction of his daughter, who resides with him, and performs domestic services in return for support, notwithstanding she is of full age, and that no express agreement exists for services: 2 T. R. 166; Id. 4; 11 East, 23; 2 Carr. & P. 303; 4 Cow. 412; Lipe v. Eisenlerd, 32 N. Y. 229. 16. Gist of Action.-The loss of service is the gist of the action, and the master can alone sustain the action. If the daughter is not living with |