, 1862-12-01

stu Another Phase-ArEumenf OF
Counsel On Demurrer to Pleas. dc,

Our readers will recollect the breach Of +
promise case OF HQdebrand VI. LII, which
when commenced several months ago, in the |
Circuit Court, created SO profound sensar
tion. The plaintiff, yonng and beautiful
girl, belonging to family long resident In
this city, sued the defendant, wealthy
brewer, and also q long time citizen Of CHI |
cago, for seduction and failnre to perform .
promise to marry. Her damages were placed
at IN enormous sum, and upon the ca. sa,
issued, Mr. Lii WAS arrested and held to bail
In $4,000. Some time afterWard, however,
motion to discharge from arrest and re-
lease the bail, was, after argument, sustained
by the Court, and the civil action is BOW pend
ing. Rumore have been rife that settlement
between the parties hsd been effected, and
that the suit was to be quietly dropped from
the>doeket. This view Of the case turns out
to have been erroneous, as it came up before |
Judge Manierre, On Saturday, On Defendants |
demurrer to pleas, rePlcallone, &C. We ap- |
pend the notes Of the argument, as taken by |
our reporter. They will be found full and i'll |
teres,lDg:
Defendant among other things alleges:
list, That Miss Alldebrand never promised
C.
| her, and, Sd. that after the time when she sa7s
| he promised to marry her, and during the
| time WHEN she says he was seducfng her, she
| was in tact engaged to be married to smother
| man in New YorK. -
these pleas, argued, lst. That the denial OF
| her promise to inarry defendant amounts to
the general issue, being = fact which she
is bound to prove a11trmattVely to sup
port her declaration. The point stoo clear
10 require authority. I'd. That her a7erment
| that Lii seductd her was merely matter OF ag-
grayatiou aud not trayersaole. This, too, vas
selftyident without authority. I'd. That her
Engagement to another cou1d not excuse Llus
brsacn Of engagement to her; that this plea
was unsustained by any authority. and that
on principle it was no answer for L,ll to SAY
that he had Tilted her because she had Tilted
somebody else.
ing points: LIST. 4 plea Of rant OF considsra-
tit.n does not amonnt to the general issue.
, Chit. PL $50; Breese, Il, and note; Smith
ys. Parsons, G. and F., 199 and note.
TEat t.sbe did not promise TO marry de-
fendant," is plea Of want Of consideration,
: because her promise is the consideration,
, without which her promise would be sastd"na
,aet,t,n-B harrison ys. Gage, l. Id; Raymond,
:;S6. Her promise Is the consideration lald IN
The decara1ion, and it is the onl5 possible con
! eideyation which could be given for his. I'd.
r. | Tie 1,lea that be did not seduee her ia good.
: for al: :heugh it should be declared Oh as mere
= agg,@ya,ion OF damage, yet if 1t ls NOT denied
f it is in laT itted-PrfrlnE Es. Harris, . u
u sud r, 5. Even in cases where the genera
!. issue does not traverse b3 implication
. The special damage, such plea mel
il be advisable, Welby ys Elson, 8 n. G: 4
l. S. A2-and where the alleged aggrayatlon is I
q separate aid Independent sact mol neeessaFn:
~ connected with the cause Of action in the re
10 1aticn ct Gauss and effect. It Is clear that
at msg be denied By aspecial plea-Nr'ghs Vs
in Newton, 6 Scott, 595. Tha alleged scdnct!o
~ capnot ID arg sense be said to BE- the conEe
~ ouence Of the breach Of promise
negative the seduction. But if the seducio
is not denied it is admitted, and it would
u moustrous to contend that defendant sha
ty not be allowed to prove that he "
he gay dscclver-or that the .constlsnti1
Wss in perfect good faith on both sides, {
OF that ehe prostituted herself to him for none
hat or tbat her body was as pure anc chasfe at !.
The time Of the hr-sch as she says be found it
tho fhe lime Of the promise, or that the honors
LIZ paterpity are dur to the lalg's attorney,
;ef- any other fact which demonstrates that h.
rge | uot seduce her. But the plaintiff does NOT
,r3v l.ge Seduction Us mere aggFayatlon, but :
-. Incorporated it into his cause Of actlou- NJ
'Iic If she m3y say That seduction Is an element
nee Ter cause OF action, eurely defendant may :
| It is not, at ali events, the point thas
MI, plea presents An inlmaterial issue
-, -. cpsy be raised On special demurrer, aad
AoAS waved pf Inc etntfal GtntAtCt u elatatlu
onl- ] Cb;tty pl. G:t15i Samuel Il, no. .. 3D.
beg. the plea laas ps1alng, s4e m nuppuseu ~
'olbr is coed. Our authority: See CLtity, J.
p!6adlpgs, p 351, part on contract 53U,
lug On 1oI he eezan1fsr t anm,,s IN
Wv he legally he1rothed to two men at the 80
time other wise she could sue both on bre
Of their respective promises, which IS aost
Besides the contract to marry involves the
onor 1atiou Of httrothal-a state which Il eons1
St. ia a'sa, ,a1as d. S as rs1id r,arrace wi5hout
man | further or other ceremonies. Her viola.
Iiliar ct The VOWS Of betrothsl is tanta1nouut
nd, subsequent miseondnct or refusal TO N:
,e Of lis rromise to Harry her. What man VIC
Is or hold hi1nEef bound to woman who
Al, ar Tilted lai1u for another After as she rays, he
sa-s te1uccd her under the promise OF marriag
coEo The defendant also pleaded that he had
aster covered the plaintiff had been unchasts,
him to which she pleaded ls anlH'sa, a.aa q asi
keble ~ ~ ss,;,.;e en1,l;es on1x to actior
t laid tlt7ict., Gculd's Fl. Ca. VII, Q, Crog
afully Cast; S Co &C. Coffin vs. B1ssett; y
ca to ~. "a. das a. s.' ~ ~ LIVE ~ ~ "a ts.T1
year 5o,,ble. Hereford rs, Grow, !; Seam, 4353
eT Of a violation of the Practice act, H.
IN re- 3be CourL aeciuSu. - 1nA. ~ tato : ~
ene marry him, is god plea Of want OF cons
olden stiop, "a. That the plea denying the sc
lat is ton was also proper, otherWisc deien
eyised might be nsia 70 nsxs au.,.ea ~ a ~
ich is lssne Mto ~. 9hsS he niea Of her new e.
ter X, u,ent wss good, because the recent en-
tim u,ent amounted to breach bE her ct the
and which excused tue defendant from FL
80, Performance
D. 3t9 was taken under adviseiue1t.