(dissenting). In this case the majority decision is strictly in accordance with the law as commonly administered. However, I am inclined to dissent from a decision which makes it unsafe for a man of means to be alone with a needy or adventurous woman.. I also' dissent from any verdict when it appears beyond doubt that it is clearly and grossly untrue. The verdict in this case is, for actual damages, $500, for punitive damages, $200. Now, on the testimony of the plaintiff herself it cannot be truly said that her actual damages amounted to $10, nor half of $10. She does testify that defendant pinched her arms so as to make black and blue spots, but on that she has no corroboration, and it is probably untrue. She does testify, in effect, that defendant forced his presence on her for half an hour from 8 to 8:3o p. m. by the watch. That *341is not true. If the defendant had been an intruder in her room she could have dismissed him in a moment with a few sharp words. If he was in her room half an hour, it was with her assent and dalliance. Her complaint avers that on August 25, 1920, at Tuttle, the defendant assaulted her with intent to ravish her. That is false, and she knew it to be false. There is not in the record a thing to indicate that defendant ever thought of ravishing the plaintiff. As a place to buy cream the plaintiff rented from defendant a 10x12 shack at the rear of his store. It had two windows; it had two doors. One door opened out to the street, and one into the store. She swears she paid defendant two $10 bills for two months’ rent in advance. That is not true. She paid only one month in advance, and it seems that the trouble commenced when the defendant demanded rent in advance for the second month. Plaintiff swears that defendant made advances to her. He swears that she made advances to him. The truth of the matter cannot be determined. But this is certain: defendant kept a general store which was well lighted by electricity, and the'light shone into the 10x12 shack at the rear end of the store. The store was open for customers. If the defendant remained in the shack half an hour, then it must have been a case of dalliance, a mutual courtship. The plaintiff was not hurt. She swears her dress was not torn. She does not swear to any injury except the pinching of her arms.
As we read in scripture, when Joseph met Potiphar’s wife, all the advances were made by her, though he was the slavé of her husband. There was no gentle dalliance or half-hour courtship. When Joseph said-“No,” it was said in a way to indicate that he meant it, and that was the end of it. But she was persistent, and at last, after several denials, she caught Joseph by his garment, and he left his garment in her hand and fled and got out. Then she took the garment with her and said unto her husband:
“The Hebrew servant, which thou hast brought unto us, came in unto me to mock me; and it came to pass, as I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me and fled.”
Then, of course, the husband believed her, and Joseph was taken and put-in prison, where he remained until he interpreted the dreams of Pharaoh, which made him ruler of all the land of Egypt. From such evidence as Mrs. Potiphar gave, the Tuttle jury would doubtless have convicted Joseph, and assessed heavy damages against him. What fools we mortals be! In cases of this kind it is high time for the courts to get *342away from the habit of washing their hands like Pilate and throwing the blame on the jury.