The New York herald., 1869-02-22
NOVEL BREACH or PROMISE SUIT.
A Man Sues Woman for $4,000 Damages
for nm Alleged Breach of Promise Of Mar
riaxc.

A Man Sues a Woman for $4,000 Damages
for nm Alleged Breach of Promise of Mar
riaxc.
From the San Francisco Herald. Jan. 2s.l
The euit Of Henry Eitel Lewis and Cynthia Kast
to recover $4,000 damages for alleged breach Vi
promise Of marriage on the part OF Mrs. kast, was
tried in the Fifteenth District Court on Thursday.
Judge McCabe briefly stated the case In his open
ing. The plalnrtn brought the suit for breach Of
promise OF marriage against Cynthia kast formerly
Cynthia Beck. lie would show by letters and other
evidence that they were engaged, and that the de-
fendant, Cynthia. broke or the engagement and
married the defendant, Lewis Kast. The defendant,
In their answer, simply deny the making or en-
gagement. He contended that woman had no
more right to violate contract of this kind tnan
man, and, the engagement being proven there could
be only the simple question OF damages. He argued
that It was almost time that some check was placed
upon tue women they had run wild' long enough.
ana an example should be set them in the result OF
this case.
After number of witness had been examined
Henry Eite. the plaintiff was sworn. lie was thin.
dapper-lOoktng young nan, and mis- manner ana ap-
pearance Indicated that he was man who desired
TO be well thought Of by tile opposite sex. He test
ned that he knew Mrs. Kast and was slightly nc
quaintcd with her husband. There was taclt en-
gagement between himself and Mrs. kast, nee Beck,
In December, 1865. The time OF their marriage had
been nxed on the 3lst 0f March following. she had
set the time three weeks from the next Tuesday
evening" because Tuesday evening was his night out
OF the store. The next day ne procured a marriage
license and gave 1t TO her. She wantedt0 keep It. and
had kept 1t ever snce.l There was no reason on his
part why the marriage was not c0nSummateu, aud
auaea; LOOKING snee9i.1' ~ dia % no. prevent H.
dated April 3, 1857, was Identified by witness and
offered In evidence The letter was wei written, aud
the composition aud expression iadyike In its tone.
The writer stated that snc had been thinking over
the steD sne was about to take and mad concluded
IL would be foolish one for both Of them; that SHE
would not be suitable wife for hun AMI know she
would regret tue marriage afterwards; IL was better
70 think OF II now than when II would be too iaIe;
she would always tnink well OF him O friend, but
did not love him well enough to be his wife. she re-
turned ring ne had given her and repaid some
the WHOLE they ought not meet aglln or have any
further correspondence.
Upon crosse AaminatiOn the plaintiff testified
that the license was procured April /, 1867; he had
been married before, and ms vile was sul living;
Judge Dwinelle nad granted them divorce
Judge Dwinee-"it Il very nkciy.r taughter).
Was divorced from his vie July 30. 1864.
The Defendants counsel offered 10 show that
plaintiff had had numerous marriage engagements
since that time, and had frequently Threatened ladies
Win suits OF luls cnAfacer Uul the Court ruled out
the testimony.
lie had given Miss Cynthia q ring, December Is,
1865, whicn was considere1 an engagement ring
between them no one else knew OF IL, they used TO
20 together then; she had not promised to marry
hun at that time, but 1.-THE ring considered 10 be
an engagement ring because II o damondn
tlaugntcrl she understood 1t that way: she did not
say IL was an ongagcmcnt ring, Dut there other
parties knew II to Be sucn; she might not have
known 1t at the time. U.augntcr.l
Mr.. Temple offered TO show, In mitigation OF dam
ages, that after tniS dnIcuty occurred he had been
making himself agreeable 10 other ladies.
Judge Dwincllc-Well, gentlemen under such Cir
cufustances must have some sO.ace. (Lauxhtcr.D
Tie Court allowed tile question, however
Witness sad nc had gone with good many ladies';
he was not engaged now.
Counsel-Are you not engaged now?
Witness lemphliicallyl-No, sirl ff.anghter.)
number OF witnesses were examined for the de-
fence. The case was then briefly argued by Counsel
few minutes absence in the jury room returned a
verdict tor the defendant.