Sunbury American. [volume] (Sunbury, Pa.) 1848-1879, 1872-11-23
Counr PsoorzDIres.-The Court of Common

CoURT PRooxDrres.--The Court of Common
Pleas commenced at this place on Monday morn
! ing last, Judge Rockefeller presiding. The first
case called was that Of Mary +. Barr George
Burns. This case was tried on Monday and
Tuesday, the Jury returning a verdict in favor of
plaintiff for the sum of one thousand dollars and
costs of suit on Wednesday morning. The plain
tG's claim was grounded on breach of promise
of marriage on the part of the defendant. The
points In the case, as sworn to by plaintiff and
defendant, respectively, we're very conflicting,
and In consequence thereof, as well as of the no.
velty Of the character of the case, the interest
manifested in the trial and its results, was quite
considerable. 1t seems that some time about the
FIRST of July, 1859, George Burns, the defendant,
became acquainted with the plaintiff. Mary 4.
Barr, girl well advanced IN years. and, after
taking number of walks from that time to the
latter part Of August together by moonlight
alone, &C., proposition of marriage was made
| and accepted by the parties, and the nuptlals
were to have been duly celebrated on the first
day of the following September. A few days pre-
vious TO this time, however, some difficulty arose
between them, the nature Of which was TINT an
| other woman bearing the name OF Ann Quinn,
claimed a precmrtive right to the hand, or at
least to the property OF the defendant. AS the
evidence seems to establish about three days be-
| fore the appointed wedding day, Ann Quinn
caused summons to issue against the defendant
! out Of the court of Montour county, and had the
same served on him. The plaintiff alleged that
on the Monday evening prior to the Wednesday
on which the wedding should have taken place,
the defendant called on her. after his trip to Dan
vile, during the same day, pursuant to an ar
rangcme 1t between them, and being required to
! report what Ann Quinn wanted to see him about,
| (some notice having the day before been convey
ed to the parties in this suit of AIMS desire to see
defendant,) and reported that he had been ar
rested for trespass upon the person of Ann Quinn
and that 1t would result in his imprisonment, &c.
Then the plaintiff replied that there would be nc
wedding at her house on the following Wodnes-
day. She now in The trial says that the reason
she broke Off the engagement WAS that she was
! Informed by him that criminal prosecution was
likely to be instituted in the premises before re-
cited. Sue assigns this reason also, for her exc
cution Of certificate of release from the con-
tract of marriage which the defendant offered in
evidence. The defendant denies that he ever no.
titled her that criminal prosecution hid been in.
| Sttuteu against MN. OF lIuI ne uau uiIcot'
ed by Ann Quinn, but only that he was summon
! ed by her, as aforesaid, TO answer II plea of a
breach of promise of marriage. Mary E. Barr,
the plaintiff, here acknowledges that she refused
to marry George Burns on the day appointed, and
that she notified him on the Monday evening re-
| ferred to, also that she at, or about that time
caused to be drawn ard executed the certificate
of release before mentioned but she further al
legcs that both the Parol and written release
were obtained from her by defendant under false
representations, to wit, he told her that he had
been arrested at the suit and instance of Ann
Quinn as above stated, when in truth he had uoi
been arrested to answer a criminal charge, ou'
only summoned to answer civil claim. Ii ereir
seems to have been the turning point of the case
and the jury apparently rather believing her ra
ther than him, although as it would seem he wa:
corroberated mole fully by other circumstances
and testimony in the case, found and returned
the verdict before adyerted to.