The following excerpt is from Marson v. Coulter, 1910 CanLII 94 (SK QB):
And in Bailey v. King, 27 Ont. App. 703, Armour, C.J., at p. 713, lays down the following:— “The cause of action for enticing away is essentially different from the cause of action for criminal conversation with a wife. The former is brought, on the assumption of the wife’s innocence, for the purpose of procuring her return to her husband, and for damages for his temporary loss of consortium, and every day she is procured by her enticer to remain away from her husband a new tort is committed by the enticer.”
There are no other similar questions at this time.