The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1845-10-31


Der. 30 Sarah Steele Us. Leps Franeis-This impor-
tant case given the jury before crowded court
ana Up also in
ance and the utmost anxiety evnced IN court Inc
upon strongly and sharply by counsel who summed up
his ioSon charged that the testimony, presented.
should govern jury in its decision as they were 10
consider how far the case was sustained by IT, Inc
Court when of nonsut mede for the defence
decided the should be given to the Jury mere
by holding that they had right to infer that the plain
tiff had sustained her action. This atese Mo" u
principle OF law IN as moi Of Is ST. in the
absence Of such testimony the jury had right " oi
that mutual promises were made between the vo
may infer in certain cases although an express PRONE
may not be proved from the circumstances attending
promise from the correspondence, the language and
pressons used in the letters by defendant The quesuon
ev;Ssnca Int from ali the circumstances attending this
correspondence the court came to the conclusion tna
they had right to infer that an engagement. had
and the law therefore would justify in finding verdict
In deciding upon this the first question that should
present itself for consideration was whether the parties
had been mutually engaged she to him and ne 10 her
Now on the one hand they had right to infer from
long and continued attention the part OF the man.
il she receives them they had right to infer that she
reciprocated and SO the law infers The suicency Of
proof the present for the consideration OF
the jury who should bear in mind all the facts and cir
cumstances attending the and whether from them
an engagement had existed It seems 10 me that you
can hardly come to the conclusion thatno engagement
language contained therein. From the language contain
ed in these letters it strikes that he was suitoI In
honorable way to the plaintiff down to s4o the Date
of these letters. Defendant married in March last and
it is needless to 60 ls40 in considering the facts
that o
it in evdencethat he continued his attentions when ne
broke his promise and got married She was not oouna
to tender marriage IL you to the conclusion that
he continued his attentions down to period Of three
months before he got married. he was in every respect
to be considered sutton up to this period Now the de
this is wofold first that there never was
promise; next that she reciprocaed the feeling
she he stated she did did not intend to get married
The next witness was Catherine Day, she said that
intended to get married il this were the case it
be presumed that he would discontinue his visits BUT
he continued his attentions according to the testimony
OF ALL until three months before the marriage and It IL
curious fact that although the elder members OF ne
family state that they did not know it, still that all the
younger members had the penetration to into it and
to found the belief upon it. that they were engaged II
is curious say that the old Days did not see it. The ap
Of the plaintiff also put in for the defence as
ground for the non.existence of the engagement but
the language Of the letters written at this very period
set up in defence that the plaintiff was not sufficiently
dent her part to infer that there engagement
but all the witnesses say he was marked IN MS
to the conclusion that he gained the affections OF the
plaintiff by such attentions they bound to give her
damages The jury should weigh the evidence and care
fully discriminate and decide in which scale the weight
the heavest and if they to the conclusion that
the plaintiff entitled to damages they were bound
in fixing the amount to take INTO consideration the c
cumstances of the defendant The object of the suit was
not alone compensation for money-charac-
ter also mpeached, and injury was in
fcted and the question they had to decide hrst was
there a promises and next, there a br, ach
The defendant certainly broke his promise by his mar
riage but if the jury come to the conclusion that the
plaintiff has failed to prove her then they should
find for the defendant il the contrary that she has
sustained her they bound to give verdict in
her favor.
The jury retired and in short period rendered
dict for plaintiff Of $1,000 damages and cents costs
The above verdict will cause alarm to those who
have violated their vows Of constancy at the shrine OF
Cupid
Francis .4ndrews George INSTRUMENTATION Of false
imprisonment to recover against an officer for arresng
bling house, Peck slip, charge Of robbing boy
OF some money and lottery policy.
Sealed verdict this forenoon
Before Judge DAILY.
jane Smith james Hdgan-This was an
ton of ejectment brought against the tenant of the pre-
misses 10 Oliver street test the title thereto
that the 9th of March, s9 the undivided half of the
Sarah g. Beekman his mother who to another
Child, Mrs. Daniels subsequently q. j. Beekman
filed his petition in bankruptcy and obtained discharge
In the bankrups schedule Of effects he set forth his equ
y Of redemption in the above property which was adj
vertised to be sold by the sheriff under fa judges
execution in the Supreme Court entered in favor OF Sd
rah q. Beekman against her Grard j. The proper
y having passed to the general assignee in bankruptcy
who sold the bankrups interest therein to the plaintiff
for 81 So under which she claims title When the
perty sold by the sheriff, the judgment, 1t was
bought by Mrs. Beekman and assigned to her Grard
conessedto the mother and seeks overthrow the
dict Verdict for defendant.
Navigation or the Ohio River.