Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1872-10-03
From the Albany Lar Journal
WHAT CONSTITUTES PROMISE
MARRIAGE.

I ~ u
WHAT CONSTITUTES PROMISE d
MARRIAGE.
The rule in Rhode Island il embed
in Perkins vs.. Hersey, / n. /. 4pS, N
Greene. Ch. j.. in charging the 81
said: "the ordinary polisesess and e.
ty which gentleman extends to ;
are not to be considered as turniships.Gt &
prcoe es such a-preus;ss. FlrC.xs. 8xr,,
We can lay down is this: If you end thar
the attentions which the defendant Maid
the plaintiff. and the intercourse between
them were such as are usual with perso rs
engaged to be married, and such as are
unusual with persons between whom there
exists no such relation. they are compe-
tent for you to consider as evidence which
may or may not, as you may determine.
sufice to prove promise Of marriage.
IL is not necessary for you to consider that
there vas an express promise made and
accepted in terms but if his conduct was
such as to induce her to believe that he
intended to marry her, and she acted upon
that belief, the defendant permitting her
to go on. trusting that he would carry the
intention into effect, that will raise a
promise upon which she may recover
In Lawrence VS.. Cook, Sc Me. 1877. the
Supreme court of Maine held, tha. in
trial ofa breach of promise case, the plain
TINS testimony. as to what declarations the
defendants mother made to the plaintiff.
IN the absence of the defendant, and not
communicated to him. was not admissible
either as tending to prove the alleged
promise on the part Of either plaintiff or
defendant
In Massachusetts, it was early decided
that young persons mighs have "their mu.
tual engagements inferred from a course
OF devoted attention and apparently ex-
elusive attachment" and tha, a mutual
promise to marry my be proved BY those
circumstances which usually accompany
such connection. Whightman vs.. Goa
ties. 10 Mass. decided in 1918. In Ray
VS.. Smith, 9 Gray. Ill. the plaintiff in
troduced evidence that the defendant ex.
pressed satisfaction that she had refused
20 walk with another man, and said. that
man could not get her away as long as
nc had claim upon her." And this was
held admissible, although the occurrence
was before the mutual promises relied
upon. In Russell VS.. Cowles. Is Gray,
es2, it was held, that preparations, made
by plaintiff in defendants absence, for
performing the alleged contract of mar
riage are provab.e, as bearing on the
question Of plaintiffs assent to mutual
promise.
The law of Vermont is embodied in
Munson vs.. Hastings. II Vt. SIG, where
it was held, that mutual promises Of mar
rage may be presumed from proper and
sufficient circumstances but mere aften-
tions. though exclusive, long continued
and manisesting an apparently serious at
tachment between the parties, arc not suf-
hcent to establish contract to marry.
In 1857 the Supreme court of Conecti-
cut decided. Waters VS. Bristol, &c Conn.
39S, in which the general doctrine is enun-
clated. that marriage contracts may be in
ferred. land, in the absence of direct ev-
idence. contracting parties are always pre-
sumed to intend what their conduct fairly
indicates"
In Badly vs.. Stratton. IL Penn, s.,
3io. the Supreme court of Pennsylvania
held, that promise of marriage on con-
dillon OF illicit Intercourse is virtually
void but that the plaintiffs statement in
writing, addressed to the defendant, of the
promise made by him to her, does not
preclude her from restoring to other evil
dence to establish valid promise. But
see Weaver vs.. Bachert, 9 Penn. St. 80,
where the same court held that consent
70 intercourse ard purchase OF furniture.
etc, are not evidence Of promise BY the
woman nor will the mans admission of
promise. which is uncertain as to what
act is referred to. be evidence against him.
by the Laws of Pennsylvania (P. l.. 1860,
p. 394 it is provided tha. on an iudict-
ment for seduction under promise of mar
rage. 1.-the promise of marriage shall no.
be deemed established unless the testimo-
ny Of the female seduced is corroborated
by other evidence. either eircumstantial
or positive" Under this statute il w.s
held in Commonwealth vs.. Walton, .
Brew. 4S7 OS6S,) that circumstantial
evidence Of promise Of marriage consists
of letters. presents. attentions, ETC.; tha,
the circumstances which warrant conclu.
sion that the parties are engaged d, us. no.
be attentions which would be consistent
With the pursuit of ''lust ;" and that the
possession Of wedding ring is not of IT.
SET! corroboration Of a promise to marry.
In the Supreme Court Of New JERSEY
the force Of circumstances. in provino
promise Of marriage. was recognized in
Coli rs. Wallace. "a N. J. L. r., 29l,
S03, where Chief Justice Zabriskic said
1T depends in q measure upon the Gus
toms and usages Of social life; indeed
the acts and conduct Of parties. which may
satisfactorily Indicate the existence of a
mutual engagement. are. in many eases,
the result Of the arbitrary ssages Of socie-
ty. Acts even in one circle Of society
would be regarded As q clear indicatiou Of
an existing engagement, in smother sphere
Of life would be totally Insignificant. -
In this case the esidcnce was not decisive.
IL appeared that defendant visited plain
tih. at her home. frequently. for few
months; thai they together paid q visit to
. friend of plaintiff; that other young men
ceased to visit her; thzt she went to m
entertainment with her brother. and, while
there, met defendant. who, standing by
her side. said. al will see her home l
will take care Of her; she Is mine, you
know. and the brother replied. Every
we'll, l viii leave her in your charge =
that v>l~,r..sy o.. A.. -