“An action (whether of trespass or case is uncertain, but probably trespass) formerly lay against one who had committed adultery with the wife of the plaintiff. It was known as an action for criminal conversation. The wife’s consent was irrelevant. The action was distinct from that of enticement: one may commit adultery without enticing a wife away from her husband. The action was no doubt a necessity when divorce could only be obtained by Act of Parliament: as Parliament was not a tribunal suitable for trying allegations of adultery it was reasonable to require the petitioner to establish the truth of his allegations before a court of law. The action might also have been justified on the ground that the plaintiff is in substance complaining of the invasion of privacy of his marriage, and the insult thereby caused to his honour as a husband.” R.F.V. Heuston, Salmond on the Law of Torts 358 (17th ed. 1977).
criminal conversation
criminal conversation. Archaic. A tort action for adultery, brought by a husband against a third party who en-gaged in sexual intercourse with his wife. • Criminal conversation has been abolished in most jurisdictions. — Abbr. crim. con. See HEARTBALM STATUTE. [Cases: Husband and Wife 340–354.]
