, 1862-11-30
fMHLpERA4ND yA. .AlLI,
1tlu eAns&Aef Ehsee-ATzuN<At 0f
CAuAssl IN U4Nurrer to Pleas, &e-


Cur raaGesS Hili 1ete lltct the bseacn OF
promise casc Of H,Ideh.snd ys. LIN. which
,sha,, ccu,n.rcaa .ap.,.1 r,o,.ts NOR, In the
n,.~s,.t - s-:...s -.-ta.,s ..r.a
NHehab eoofs' csea'sa e>' pfolpano eeo"A
ton. The ptatrtilt, Sonug and beautiful
pir1. belonging to f.,ni,Y long resident In
~. NV. .-sa .hs aatsraa,f we.,thu
s1i' e''s' ee.0 aue esos
ereNtr. and &i.o loa8 s!fAc clt19a o. H.
ezzo, for seduction spa Ekluru to perform
-,en,.a N n.rr Hrr a.,,,1e. wc,ye n,aced
foA'e ~ -. 49,
~ N enofnpoo Enin' Aao ufun VIZ e"- ~.
isEutd. Nj. LII Waa arrested ana held 10 oaii
IN $40 Gf0 anyne f{rne affarEard. however.
rn,t,r "a a1sc,,,,,7c fr;,-. ,arr,.t ,1a -.
. A''s'o" 80.
lease lhr pA1s, Wa, a1tel afsuineAt' susIaaiea
by the Court, sud the civil action Is nov pend
tnp Ru,nora hare tt.tn r.f. that settlement
-, ~. ,.,4,.. h.5 ,,,1, .u..t..s -
oe'~een lae pasu:8 naa osea eneeseo' ana
that the suit WAs to be quietly dropped from
Tie docket. This yiex Of the case :Iras out
- ,,.a 4..o,, er,ono,-. &C II cxme ,+, haf,r,
- tlas1 eeeh s''oasens. - ~ eaAs ~ se4.,e
5hoGe AaSh1ef1c, Oh nstu1o*s' Oh ee'enuaa1
demurrer to pleas, rsI 9ita:ione. &e. We ap-
1,c,,d ,he notes of .he argument. IL ,akcn by
~, ~ 60 ~, :.
our 'eto'tes' '1es nj" oe ''s'A'" AUX A''a ie-
teresting:
ntterdant amenr other tb;ues ALLEGES;
Ia That afisr iildebraut Eeype ;roml.et
10 MART lin, u. Thar he acyeI sriucsd
her. and. 3D.. that st,rr the tiu,a t1sp Sue e.ys
hr promised to marry her, and during tae
wss III iac; engaged to b. married to arrtner
man IN Nax ToiS.
Mr.. Dow. In Eurrort Of tte denuuer TO
,ncse 1,Icas' argued, lit. That tAs druill Of
her PROMISE to marry defendant amounts to
the xrrerp1 jss1e, Being q TACT which she
port Ae7 declaration. The point was too clear
10 require aathcri;y, ID, That her ayerrnenr
that LII saduccd hsr Wa merely tnatter OF az
sszv.yion ant mol trsrersaoie This, too, vas
s-E-cyiicnt without authority. Sd. Tu4t her
enrs.ement to another could not exeusp Lilrs
hTrach Of encateucnt to her; that 1ais plsa
Was un=ustaiuet by any authority, and tast
on nr:rcip1e it *as no answer ior LA IT. s.y
That he had Tilted leE bresuss shs hsL jlltad
somebody else:
AE Martin, for defendant, made tie follow
;..r votutt: ast. ) ries Of want Of considers
l;sn does lot a1uurut to the geucfal issue.
C5tt. II $50 = H:eese, II, and no:e, Smith
rs, FarspEb, t. anl e., lN aud uota
Tl.at 'tthe did hot promise To nasry 3e-
fecdau.," il Q ptea o1 nant Of consideration,
because her Promise is tic Consideration
without wAieh her promise would BIZ aa,iua.
po:tnm-llarrison ". ;ti4.,e, Id; Eayu,oad,
| ;5sG Her promise S tac Consideration lsid ia
tic declaration, snd II Is the eul1 possible coll
/ sidera1ior wEieh ec;hc be glscn for hia. IL
| 11s plea that he cid moi sedu.e n5z Is yoad,
! fur s..kaueh il should be !Scla.ed on IL mere
eeErsyaiGn OF ta.ll.t,e, yet il II Is not denied
| i; L il iau .si:nitre.l-Perrins vs Harris, :. NJ
| aI.a i, s. Even in csees whetr the general
| ls.ue doc. nor traserse hy icap}leastor
/! liz special d4migt, such Il p!ea r.2y
| BE- advisable, Wtlby IS Exon. 5 II. G. i
! s. l42-aE6 where the al:egei: asgrAva,,on l. q
t sey.ra.e AID ;ndtutiscen, iett not necessarily
cpnusctcd v ila the carsr Of a.:t!on in the re
la:Icu ui ts.use and etttc:. Il /. clrer :h1. it
! tu1y TT. tlGai.1 br f.sueciaI tica-Wrika. Is,
Sywtrn. 5 settt, 5%,. T!:4 alleged selection
cal Of il s1,S sense 5a said 70 DC the couEo-
| Gutcce ut The breach Of tsroulI=e,
therefore dt .ist ii .hal krcach would act
rscatire tae s.dac.iou. BIT. il tie seduction,
l. rel rrt;c1 il l. aafaittrd and il wru!ts bt
n,ez..t5cus to con.rpu that defendant eia!
not BE- allowed 10 prove taat he xat
liz innocent dupe aca she was ths
rev Gecrivcr-o, tt.t ;he cons!itnlor
Wss in pcrfsct So:>d faith on both sides, o.
that :E,; prossiluled tgrstlf to A.to for n1uner
t,T lin. he body w:s as uare a..i csssee ut Ii:
tiuae Of tie hr:sch IS e1e says As found i. i
IL line cf tie promise, OF taAt she honyrs c
paternity s.c due to tie lsd7's a1soruey, o
Eot Ee3uce hez. Du, t':e plaintiff does not ii
l,.re sr6urticu 4. c,+.r sgz1.va,ion. h,,. u.
iseoroor.t<d j i; into Is caGsr oi action. No,
II sic r,er saw that sedustiou Is al e,e,,,eI1 /
Lvr c.as.. {. at,ion, surriY defendant Lay ~
i, il .:o,, Il III eyvs!s, ti!s ;,,i;i. ta=: Il.
ul,A urt.tn:f, Az ;l,rnAter;al issY. cs
En,y fc raittl Oh sj.ecIai oeu:us1er. sid
w,ysd h5 liz genera. c.nurrey Of p:Aia,i:!. :
! cai1t~ n. o3.; i Sa1nuel II, Nc =. IS. Tia
; tte pisa ~Tna1 tending ;ne supposed b.
! trc. .tal stc u saasiil heisyl. to ani,sh.r Ma1
is cSt:d, oar auInu,ity: aas Cntttv, u
; n, at;nce, =. H5l, / 5aci OF ccrt-act SD, ua
u pr11cip!r, 1o1 u denur.v. admits re
! orr; legal engagement; tat woman can nc
; L. itesI]y t:;rc, h, !. to Two tlla i. tie san;
r time. nstus jse she could "a. both OF u,esc
i Of thcir respective ,rec.tses. which Is AIS. e
B@,drs ttc cont,hs: 70 u.a.sy tuTo!ses The Il
1...oa q h.;,cti.a.-a State sYLjch /. consuy