F. H. SAAB, Elder Partner of F. H. SAAB AND BROTHERS, Appellant, v. H. S. SAMSON and his Wife WILLELMINA SAMSON, Guardians of FRIEDA MAGDALENA SAMSON, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SINOE COUNTY.

Decided December 22, 1936.

1. A writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to collect damages for alienating a wife’s affections, or for her seduction, nor to collect dower paid for a woman who may become a faithless wife.

2. Although a husband may have a writ of habeas corpus to procure the release of his wife from illegal detention, the only function of the writ is to set the woman at liberty to go where she pleases.

3. The object of the writ is to break chains holding men in bondage, not to put them there. Hence, suitors should not be allowed to use this writ for the collection of damages for alienating a wife’s affections, or damages for her seduction, or dower for her desertion.

4. Hence, suitors should not be allowed to use the greatest of all writs as an engine of oppression.

Defendant-appellant appeals from an order of the Circuit Court in a habeas corpus proceeding. Judgment reversed.

S. David Coleman for appellant. William N. Witherspoon for appellees.

MR. JUSTICE DOSSEN delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case comes up to this Court upon a bill of exceptions from the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Sinoe County. The record shows that the appellees, plaintiffs below, filed a petition before His Honor R. A. Monger, Resident Judge, in which they prayed for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus against the appellant, defendant below, in the Equity Division of said Court at its November term, 1935, alleging, inter alia, that the prisoner named in the petition had been by them hired out to one Steffens, a German citizen, employed by the firm of West and Company, Ltd., for the purpose of raising funds to defray her passage to German South West Africa from which she came, etc., and that appellant subsequently deprived her of her liberty.

Appellant, defendant below, in his returns to said writ, said, inter alia, that said prisoner—a young woman—mentioned in the writ of habeas corpus, was in defendant’s compound unrestrained of her liberty; and that she, being of full age, had entered into an agreement with the said defendant as “House-keeper,” which agreement was annexed to the returns for the information of the court. (See returns.)

The court after hearing the evidence, pro et con, decided :

“That taking into consideration her true interest and welfare the court orders that she be placed in temporary custody of Honourable and Mrs. W. J. Clarke of this city, under such reasonable terms to be arranged between the said gentleman and his lady and the parents of the said child, until such time as a steamer from the coast will have arrived, and then she will be returned to the custody and control of her parents in River Cess. Defendant, appellant above is ruled to pay all costs.”

Appellant being dissatisfied with the several rulings, the opinion and final decree rendered against him by the trial judge, excepted, and appealed to this Court upon a bill of exceptions for review.

By an inspection of the records filed, we find that among the answers to questions put to the young woman during the hearing were the following:

“Ques. How old are you?

“Ans. My mother in South West Africa told’ me that I was born 1915.

“Ques. Don’t you think it would have been proper for you to have returned to your aunt?

“Ans. I did not want to go to her and I saw a man I loved and I went to him.

“Ques. What relation exists between you and that man now?

“Ans. I am living with him quite free and good, and I signed a contract between him and myself.

“Ques. Miss Witness, now that you are in Liberia, whom do you call your mother and father, i.e., whom do you look to as your mother and father?

“Ans. I look up to Mr. F. H. Saab as my mother and father.

“Ques. Miss Witness, were you influenced by the defendant to leave Mr. Steffens’ home?

“Ans. No.

“Ques. You having said that formerly you resided with Mr. Steffens but now you are living with Mr. Saab, the defendant, will you please tell this Court the cause if any of your leaving Mr. Steffens’ home?

“Ans. Because Mr. Steffens treated me badly.

“Ques. Miss Witness, during your stay with Mr. Steffens what sort of training did he give you?

“Ans. He did not teach me anything except marrying habits.

“Ques. This marrying habits you referred to does it bear any relation to bedroom concerns?

“Ans. I mean he sleeps with me.”

Which shows (I) that the said prisoner is not really a minor, and that she is of sufficient discretion at least to understand the contract that she made; and (2) that her liberty was not illegally restrained as the petitioners in their petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleged.

Our own Supreme Court in a case not entirely different from the one now under review, Chea Gbay Peakeh v. James Nimrod alias Gbannie, left us as buoy lights some principles for our guidance in matters of this sort which we feel safe to follow in this case. Said Mr. Justice McCants-Stewart, then speaking for this Court:

“. . . This great writ, which guards every man’s liberty can not be used to collect damages for alienating a wife’s affection, or damages for her seduction; nor can it be used to collect dower, which was paid for women, who became faithless wives. This writ is used to break chains holding men in bondage, and not to put them there. . . .

“It is said : ‘A husband may have a writ of habeas corpus to procure the release of his wife from the custody of a third person against her will. The only function of the writ in such case, however, is to remove the illegal restraint, if any, and put the woman at liberty to go where she pleases. It cannot be used as a means of compelling a wife to perform her marital duties; and, therefore, where she is voluntarily, of her own desire and without any restraint, living apart from her husband, the court will not grant a habeas corpus on his application for the purpose of restoring her to his custody.’ (I5 Amer. & Eng. Enc. Law, and cases cited.)

“. . . Suitors should not be allowed to use the greatest of all writs as an engine of oppression. . . ” [1913] LRSC 6; 2 L.L.R. 102, 109, 1 Lib. Semi-Ann. Ser. 21 (1913).

After careful inspection of the evidence adduced at the trial of this cause pro et con, we are of the opinion that the petition of petitioners is without merit, it not being supported by sufficient legal evidence, and should be dismissed, the judgment of the lower court reversed, and appellees ruled to pay all legal costs; and the Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to send a mandate to the lower court ordering said court to resume jurisdiction, and discharge the prisoner; and it is so ordered.

Reversed.