Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1844-01-19

the widow, mrs. Cole,) no boosted he va
counting q number Of other women. He,
(Mr. Gerard,) had list Of them, and he
found they amounted to the exact number Of
Blue Boards wives. First, there was Miss
Russell, who he thought had $500, but as
this expectation turned out 10 be false he
would not marry her. Miss Russell stood
in his affections as high As $500. bu. the
money gone, the love dissppeared-jumped
out Of the window. The next was Ellen
Hoffman, since married-whom he familiar.
y addressed by tho name Of his "lovely
woman"-and her brother by the cognomen
Of rother.in-law." She was very good
looking woman. The third was Mrs. Tasek
but who she was, he (Mr. Gerard) did not
know. Then there was Miss Holmes the
names Of the fifth and sixtl, he could not re.
member; and the seventh was Miss Curtis,
who had now the happiness Of sharing his
bed and board; and he, (Mr. Gerard) hoped
hs had got his match Could any thing
better show the real character Of the man
than his Wholesale cour,shipl All this was
at the time he was counting Mrs. Cole, and
he was only waiting for her TILL after her
fathers DEATH"
We subjoin a repor, Of tho charge Of
Judge Kent 10 the Jury.
The action, the Judge said, was trough, 10 recover
compensation in damages for the breach Of an nlleg.
ed engagement 10 marry. The learned counsel for
the defence had mentioned that this the first case
OF the kind brought before jury Of this State; it
was only the second instance which he (the Judge)
recollected. Of man suing woman for the breach
Of promise OF marriage. 1t was therefore rare
occurrence; butt nevertheless was good ground Of
| action. It made out Now to make il ont, the Jury
mist he satisfied that there ha been ona 6de and
effective engagement or promise of marriage; and
the promise mnst be reciprocal, otherwise the engage
inen not binding IN law Ii ihis-ihe frs, point
was proved 10 the satisfaction of the jury the
question was. had there been any good cause shown
tor the breach OF the engagements and, lastly, if the
jury believed no such cause Of breach had been
shown, the next inquiry was what amount of DANA.
ges, they would glve-o question entirely for their
consideration The evidence with regard to the al.
legged promise lay in narrow compass as he would
poin, out The learned Judge then went over the
whole testimony on this branrh Of the case, with
some degree of ninuteness, adding some comments
upon the chief features in it, Promises of this sort
he remarked, were treated by our law contracts
huf' al me same time they were contracts which diff
fered little from those in mercantile pursuits Here
the contract was for holy matrnony, in which each
party engaged 10 spend their lives together; ant
therefore the courts had said, that if tehre q sup
preston OF facts upon either side, of nature 10 des
troy the future happiness Of the other, if tn
contract were kept, the party deceived had RICH
10 break of the engagement. Herein the contracts
for marriage differed from those Of ordinary des
cripon; and if the jury believed there had been il
this suppression OF truth upon the part of tn
plaintiff, they would say so. The evidence as it bor
upon this point, was then read by The Judge, VIII
conclud his charge by again stating to the jury tn
points 10 which their duty was directed.
The Jury, after consulting together for
quarter Of an hour, returned verdict fo
the defendant.-Dai. Advertiser.