The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1848-04-27
Sarah Burr
This was an action upon
n breach Of promise of mar
fI'l.a N-.N..,s.s...- u


Warren Burr, brother of the plf, testified that,
for two years prior to Oct. 1885, the pld. was in the
service of the deft.s father, and that during the
last six months, the witness was also in his employ
that during this time the pf and def. were very
intimate with each other and that the dcft frequent
y took her to ride, and on one occasion they went
together to Brandon to see the caravan. The wit
ness further testified that about the time they left in
Oct. 1915, the def told him he was engaged to his
sister, and that they were to be married within q
year. He also testified that the def. was married in
Feb. 1917, to a Miss - and that this had Sc
rous effect upon his sisters health and spirits.
Mary f. Burr, the wife of Carlos Burr, q brother
of the pf., testified that, in November, 1916 she
overheard conversation between the deft and the
father and mother of the plh., in which he admitted
that he had engaged himself to the plff and that
the reason of his forsaking her was, that he was
told he would be obliged to support them, Cher faith
er and mother) that he ought to have seen Sarah,
(thc pf) and told her about it, and that he meant
to have done so. This conversation the witness
stated she heard while standing by the door, in an
entry leading into the room where the delft and her
father and mother in law were. She also testified
to the deft IS having brought the plf to their house
while she living at the deft'5 fathers, and to
the effect which the dcfts subsequent marriage had
on the plf.'s health.
DR.. Arlington testified in relation to the pl1's
health-deprcssion Of spirits SC. at several times
when he had been called upon oyisit her during the
past two years.
Miss Harriet Sergeant testified that the plaintiff
was residing at her fathers when it first began TO be
reported that the delft was paying attention to his
present wife, and that this news seemed to operate
very unfavorably upon tile plf.
Miss - Bogue testified to having qeen the
plft and def riding and going together to the plI's
fathers, and on occasion returning together as
late as II O'Clock at night.
Edwin Lester testified to having seen them riding
together, and one or two occasions going to Car
los Burr's.
The above constituted the showing on the part of
the plff.
On the part of the def:
Caharne Dclong testified that, about fortnight
before the pf left Mr. Loveland's, in answer to
question she put to her. the plf: replied that she
should never have Nelson, (the delft, whose middle
name is Nelson); that they were not engaged, and
he had never said anything to herabout it. Witness
asked her if they did not go to Brandon to tho
van together to which the pllf. replied that that
only because her brother would not carry her.
Mrs John NJ. Goodenow testified that the plff, |
lived with her the winter after she left Mr.. Love-
lands, and during that time told her that there was
no engagement between herself and the deft., aud
that the reason Of hcr going to tho caravan with
him, was, that her brother would not carry her.
Witness also testified that during the two months
the pltf resided with her the delft novor visited her,
and was in the house but once, which was for the |
purpose of seeing her husband upon business.
John NJ. Goodcnow testified to the same effect in
reference to the dsft. not visiting the pf while at
his house.
Mrs. Emclinc Wood testified to certain admissions
of the pllf. that she did not expect to DO married.
&c. &c.
Cyril NJ. Green testified that he was cousin Of
the plf., and that in May or June, 1916, she told
him she did not expect to marry the det., for the
off if they chose.
Nahum J. Green testified that upon one occasion,
since the plff left Mr.. Lovelands, she asked the
witness to take her there said she wanted to 90
some time when the deft not there, so that they
would not think she was after him and further
said that she wanted nothing of him, and supposed
that he did not of her did not know of any par
;rt;,, hot hut,
examination stated that during his (the witness)
sickness, the plf and deft together sot up with him
Is watchers during one night.
Samuel B. Loyeland, his wife and sister of the
defendant, each testified that, during the ps resi-
lence in their fathers family there WAS no partcu-
intimacy between her and the deft., and more
han existed between her and the other members of
he family that at the time of the caravan being
1t Brandon, the pl desired her brother to take her
here and that upon his refusal she Cried and then
equesed the deft. to carry her; and that whenever
had taken her either to the stores or to her faith
RS it at her request, ana usually after the re-
usal of her brother to do so.
The case was argued by John G. Newell and S.
'oot for the Plf., and by E. Edgcrton and R. Pier
,oint for the Def.
The court charged the jury that the important t
question for them to decide, was whether there had
,een promise Of marriage by the deft., en- c
,agement between the parties proved for if there
lad, there was no question about the breach, and e
he plf's consequent right to recover. That it was
rot to be expected that contract of this nature j
ould be proved by any who were witnesses to it, {
,ut was usually to be established by the admissions
If the party, and his acts and conduct in corrobora
ion That the admissions of party that he was t
Engaged to, and had promised to marry another, a
eomed in their nature to be entitled to more consid-
ration and weight, than those of the opposite party
hat no such engagement existed; but that the jury
we're to take all the admissions proved into consid
ration, and Judge of them by all the circumstances r.