Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1843-07-20
From the Providence Journal.
Circnit Court OF The United States.
.4bby Breck VS.. Clark Dal,ympio.

liTcult lOufl OF Inc ulllltd SlatCS
Abby Brcek VS.. Clark DaI,ympiO.
BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY.
4. +. Carp. nter, Esq opened The case
for the plaintiff, and called the following
Witnesses:
.7masa Breck, father Of the plaintiff,
has employed counsel 10 prosecute this
suit has advanced money To pay The
witnesses has no claim upon his daugh-
ter tor repayment.
The counsel for the defendant object
10 tins witness on the ground Of interest
The Court Overruled The objection.
Abby 'Breck is my daughter. Have
known The defendant five or seven years ;
plaintiff knew him while his second wife
was living defendant called on plaintiff
about the last of June or frs, of July
l842 called frequently IN August, Sep.
temher, October, November, and De-
ccmbef soinc times twice day defen.
dant came to see plaintiff; | saw them
walking out together; plaintiff set out to
GO 10 Barneyv'llc in August, 1919.
received a written billet signed by de-
fendant, (ihe witness here produced the
billri,) dated December, lS42, asking
consent to marry plninIf wrote an an.
swrr, (here produced dated December
7, l842, giving consent. About week k
aiirr this, plaintiff ordered the cake to be
nade had new dresses, sc. On e8,h
December plaintiff came down stairs in
tears, ] went L" see the defendant, at her
request, nj his otfic e ,on the I'd of Januaiy,
i353, | nsked him what the difficulty
was; he SAID he had concluded not to
marry plaintiff; said he did not like her
disposition said his friends did not wish
him 10 marry her and her friends did
not wish her to marry him there were
no objections TO the match on our part :;
we were much pleased with it defen-
dant said that he had heard that nv bows
threatened to cowhde him said. he had
had two wives said they were nice
women said he was sorry the difficulty
had happened said he would come 10
my house /; did come about 4 o'clock,
p. ~. same day wished plaintiff to re-
lease hun wished plaintiff TO give him
up; plaintiff said she should never give
hun up; plaintiff said she WAS engaged
Ia him she il % years of age deien-
d,nt asked her for watch aud chain !.
plaintiff refused to give them up; she
gave up nothing then or since she had
n ring with his and her initials upon it.
and a honnct ; defendant said the watch
belonged 10 his former wife he did not
deny that ho had given the watch to
plaintiff; he said he would give up :he
wat, If she would release him
Cross examined by George Rirers,
Esq.
| irst considered them engaged when
he wrote the letter 10 me in November
and DeccmbPr defendant paid all atteD-
lion 10 plai0iiA'; ! snw them walking out
together; saw them riding together; no
other genllcmcn called on plaintiff during
said time after the 25th Of Decer,ber,
plaintiff had party say on the 28th or
"9Ih defendant was ut the party sell
dom saw defendant in the house about
the time Of the party plaintiff went to
Barneyville sometime about the first or
econd Of January plaintiff wesi 10 II CON
cert with John Palmer she went to COZ
cert by invitation Of my son they me,
Palmer at the door ; all went out togeth-
or 4; gentlemen called upon her IN the
fore part Of this summer none in par,icu-
lar | don't know that Wm. b. Bourn.
was engaged to plaintiff; two years ago
he did not show her the attention he
ought, and dismissed him he wished
10 come back and told him wished
him to marry plaintiff he wrote to Inc
here the letter was produced never
idd him he Gus, marry plaintiff or pay
n"ver told hiun be rpsL., pay money, and
II he married p'ainil 1T IL should he repaid
never had al interview with Bourn or
asked bun about his property he has
A. been IN my house since LS4l.
Direct examination resumed.
! work in my shop in the daytime
Ihsru' N was Intimate with defendants
" lte defendant was considered q suitor
of plaintiff hrIore note oi December 9th :;
my other daughter and one Of my boys
generally ~ the roeH with plaintiff and
defendant ] never answered the letter
from B"urn.
Cross examination resumed.
I saw the defendant after the ad Of
January called ut his office to tell him
planl,f bad concluded not 10 release
hun . stayed bm few moments at my
Ii"nse ] told bvn IL was breach of pro-
inI-e he asked what would settle IL (; ]
.ad spch ce-rs cost about $1,000 or
5000 , id'.iniIl was present bu, said
rolibng dsl"ndau' came to the house on
''h ri Jnrna,y lbink ! received more
han "ne Ieurr from I.ourp defendant
.a,' jIr did rot like plnlniin"s disposition 4
CnLlg,ine B,e.k Is u SISTER of plaintiff =
'''t ~ haIur knrw 81 The def ndani's
',as sa@ the ea,,h aud uug saw The .
\ at Il " lr,, Al Mas uslt1et,d "A, l,nd AMI 7