The New York herald., 1849-05-10

to build each other up turn our faces Zionward and
press forward over every obstacle toward the for
shall endeavor to again about the Goth or the
t OF TINS month, hope and think to better salts
iactlon than
dhee must certainly write soon as thee gets this
tn. aS " may reach me before write again. and let me
the worst, for on thy happiness mine dsnenIs
Tell Misses down stairs. and Misses up stairs that
call on them and If they y'r wiI ai'ssnse nlsns we x
their own business, it may keep them ont Of idIe
ress. My father and half sister called to tbv grand
father a week ago last 4th day, and t,ek ih;nnsr.
and thy aunt Sarah made ii her business to tell NV
half sister to tell not to be in too much of hurrv
for she wanted to make new cap. and that | must
come up and see grandfather and mother and aunt
Sarah. ! had business in that quarter the eve-
ming, so called them sure enough, and instead Of
tickling them with gggling and jesng, soon threw
cloud of krout their profles, which put a
shall now cndeavor to close this nonsense by say
ing, that in coming home my cousin who. was with
found his father at the landing waiting for US and
it most bitter cold night and rode part of the
way and walked part of the way; by that and by
buichering pork on fifth day following cooled me or
rather sudden and created barking for my appetite
deemed 1t most prudent to resort to fac smile of
the locomotive system for the space of evening" and
the next morning was the same old knife-two new
blades and one new handle
With love to thy dear parents and brothers, / an
BENJAMIN
Directed to Maria Switzerland. l31 Bank street
The evidence for plaintiffs then closed, and the
defendants counsel after making few brief remarks
called defendants father,
to prove that was in consequences of his Interference
the match was broken of Counsel both sides
the Jury, in substance, as follows lie said this
well defined action brought to recover dam
in s G which %aSs Are Are
of my reading before met with There will be
difficulty, therefore in dealing with and adjusting the
facts Gentlemen it Is true counsel stated that in
order to maintain this action must appear that there
was a mutual promise to marry between the parties,
but the promise may be an express implied pro-
knowledged made the promise but in of this kind
il rarely happens and indeed female decacy forbds us
to expect it that the proof be gvenin this
in the of other contracts the more usual mode
of proof is by letters and the of the parties
towards each other from all which jury infer
whether there was or was not mutual promise Of mar
riage between them. This action partakes of both
those species of proof You have, in the first place.
from Mrs. Switzerland, the ladys mother the history
of this conrtship growing out of visit made by the
time there does not to be prior acquaintance
between the plaintiff and defendant. 1t appears
that on her return home, the defendant accom-
panied her to this city after which more in
innate acquaintance commenced. Several visits
house. Now, it is for you to say, this such
courtship as you can infer promise from, because
between the parties that the defendants addresses
made in the form of courtship and with view to
honorable union Here, it may be proper to remark,
that, in my opinion, there is no blame whatever to be
attached to either partythe entire business whatever
conclusion you may arrive at ia regard to it, seems to
be carried on with great simplicity and frankness-a
frankness and simplicity which belong peculiarly to
the sect to which the parties in this suit belong and
reason s & why it it should not be pc performed ppif' II
promise was made. The defendant does not allege
that it from any fault of hers that he did not
marry her. he alleges nothing against her, and so
far the parties stand on very moral ground But to re-
eye Of f the law It is h man makes reaues
either verbally or in writing to a woman to marry
him. 1t Is not necessary for her. to make the promise
mutual that she responds by an express promiseyou
will be able to judge frois the evidence laid before you
whether her conduct and bearing afterwards such
hat ntrlu tpfar that ul,n xkuxl
marry him. 1t is therefore tor you to say,
der all the circumstances of this case, whether the
be made out to your satisfaction; and you find that
it was, then your next inquiry will bewas there
breach q this promise There is evidence Of a
fusa on the part of the defendant; but it in proof
that he married another woman before this suit was
that there was refusal II You find % there w"s then
the next question for you, will be, the amount Of
damages you ought to give in this have said, in
the outset that this marked by very peculiar
circumstances 1t is said, the part Of Mrs. Wood
that she Is entitled to recover heavy damages
The case has been characterized throughout by her
counsel of great hardship and Of very aggra-
waited character. He has dwelt very much her suf
crings and the wounds that have been inflicted her
feelings He has told you that she has been grievousy
disappointed, her affections outraged and har health
paired and for these he asks that the defendant
should be punished This is the case on her side and
the grounds upon which damages urged and it is
for YOU to consider all these circ and give
such damages you think the warrants. On the
other hand 1t Is said there crcumstaucesin
this which ought to take into consideration,
the part Of the defendant in mitigation Of damages
II has been said that II from reverence for pa
authority that he broke off this match; and that
when he found out he could not marry her. he wrote to
her in the Kndsst and most conciliatory manner
questng continuance offrendy feeling between them;
that he did not wantOny violate his promse that he
acted with great honesty Of ntention that he loved
and his father and that in breaking of the
You will therefore take all those circumstances into
confederation and from them judge OF the motives
which governed his actions all through and say whe
ther he violated his engagement from wantonness in
obedience the strong and expressed commands Of his
father There another circumstance of great weight
which has been urged by the learned counsel tat has
addressed you the part Of the dcfe. .uant in mtga-
| tion Of 4amages. It is this the defendant, some
eighteen months after the courtshp, married another
lady and the plaintiff, in time after also mar
ried and her husband is party to this suit, and
his is the records of this Court 1t is perhaps,
fair to presume that, If this suit was not brought
before her marriage that would not be brought after
wards would appear to many to be very anomalous
thing for man to bring suit for injury done to
his wife's feelings for refusal to marry her ana
afterwards put the damages in nus pocket Yet after
ALL do not know of any law to preven: Z. Previous
to ls4s there would be difficulty in the way Of b.ing
ing such an action but, in that year, statute wa3
passed securing TO married their separate pro
perty for their own support and, under it, II any da
images given in this case they would go to the wife
as her own private property Damages also claimed
for her because of injury to her position in society
and to her future prospects; but it Is urged
the other side that she sustained injury on these
points because she was in year after married.
and to her entire satsact and, the efore the most
serious injury to arise from this breach Of promise
been removed. This is undoubtedly legitimate argu-
/
appear before us but that she is married happily and
fortunately, and all the injuries that you take
into consideration those to her feelings and her
general health and, under all the circumstances it is
for you to give nch damages as you may ft taking
care, first, that mutual promise to marry has been
made out from the evidence but il you do not find
there was there Is of action here The iury
retired and soon after returned with verdict Of six
cents damages for the plaintiffs
Christopher r. Vimpte rs Chas. b. Birton-Ths is
action Of replevin to try the right of property in
about $500 worth Gf goods II appeared that the goods
were purchased frem the plaintiff by named
Christal who formerly kept auction in Broad
way. The plaintiff alleges that Christal obtained them
from him by fraud and misrepresentation, and after
wards sold them to defendants that soon as the pain
tiff ascertained that he had been defrauded and that
his goods were in defendants possession, he issged
writ OF replcyin, and upon entering into the usual
curity they were delivered to him by the sheriff id-
journed.
Police Intelligence.
Charge Of Fraud-OfHcer Edwards, Of the 3D. dstric,
police and George Reyea of the Independent Police,