## Facts

- The plaintiff (Rose) and his wife had been married for more than 30 years and had 14 children.
- The defendant (Kavanagh) was a long-time neighbor.
- Kavanagh was friendly with Mrs. Rose but had a poor relationship with Mr. Rose.
- Between about 1943 and 1945, Mr. Rose and Kavanagh had repeated quarrels and altercations; some episodes led to Kavanagh being trespassed and arrested.
- In 1945, Mr. Rose was away working for several months. During that period, Kavanagh visited the Rose home frequently.
- Before Mr. Rose returned, Mrs. Rose left the matrimonial home, went to live with her sister, obtained employment, and did not return to the home.
- After Mrs. Rose left, an adult daughter remained to care for the younger children and manage the household.
- Evidence at trial (as summarized in publicly available previews) included that Kavanagh encouraged Mrs. Rose to leave, gave her money, suggested she obtain employment, and offered to pay her board if she could not find a job.
- Mr. Rose claimed damages, alleging Kavanagh induced his wife to leave and then harbored her.
- Kavanagh’s answer (as summarized in the same public previews) was that Mr. Rose was abusive; Mrs. Rose was unhappy at home; and she had left previously for short periods but had been persuaded to return.

## Issues

1. Whether Kavanagh wrongfully procured or induced Mrs. Rose to leave Mr. Rose, giving rise to civil liability for enticement/interference with marital relations.
2. Whether Kavanagh wrongfully harbored or maintained Mrs. Rose away from Mr. Rose after her departure.
3. Whether Mrs. Rose left because of Kavanagh’s conduct or for reasons arising from the marriage itself (including alleged abuse and prior separations), and how that affected causation and any damages.

## Decision

- The decision is reported at *(1946) 15 Nfld. L.R. 428* from the Supreme Court of Newfoundland.
- Publicly available case summaries identify Dunfield J. as the author.
- The accessible public material describing this case does not disclose a reliable statement of the court’s final disposition (for example, whether judgment was for the plaintiff or defendant, or the amount of any damages), and it does not reproduce the court’s operative reasoning.

## Legal Principles

- A claim framed as enticement of a spouse generally requires proof that a third party intentionally procured the spouse’s departure from the marriage, resulting in compensable loss to the remaining spouse.
- A related “harboring” theory generally turns on proof that the defendant intentionally kept the spouse away after the separation, rather than merely having contact or offering incidental assistance.
- Causation is a central question: liability typically depends on whether the defendant’s conduct was a real reason the spouse left or stayed away, as opposed to the spouse acting for independent reasons.
- Evidence about the state of the marriage (including alleged mistreatment and prior separations) commonly bears on whether the defendant’s conduct caused the separation and on the scope of any recoverable loss.

## Conclusion

*Rose v. Kavanagh* concerns a husband’s tort claim against a neighbor for allegedly encouraging and assisting the husband’s wife to leave the matrimonial home and for allegedly harboring her afterward; while public summaries provide the factual outline and the parties’ competing explanations for the separation, they do not provide enough information to state the court’s final holding or reasoning with confidence.


Rose v. Kavanagh, (1946) 15 Nfld. L.R. 428 (1946)