The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-01-22
YORK HERALD THURSDAY JANUARY o. ls74-TRIPLE SHEET

OF Indifference to her whether she married the oe-
iendant or not then large verdict against the ae'
woqo % gross Ine us sroys the
contract dtd not appear In this case. me con-
tract wac admitted; It was admitted that the
promise was made and the appropriate prePara..
tons were made for con summating 1t on the Sd OF
July. The great issue which the jury were 70 de-
termine was as TO whether there had been any JUS
tihable breach OF this contract, and II tney
found that there had been such an unustI-
fable breach then they would nx the amount OF
damages they would render by their verdict. NOW
1t was claimed on the part OF the defence that the
defendant was justified in breaking the engage
ment. IL was alleged also by the defendant tnat
the marriage was postponed by the consent oi
PLAINTIFF and Judge Pratt said 1t would be well
for the jury first to consider whether there had
been any p0stponement which the law could regard
as . postpOnement by the consent OF both par
ties The plaintiff denied that she consented to any
postronement. The jury would examine All the
lActs and circumstances and say whether tnere
had been q p0stpOnement by consent oil plaintin.
because, as matter Of law. II the day was nxed
by consent q both parties, then there was q
breach upon that day aud cause OF action
accrued. and the plaintiff would be entitled TO
recover such damages as the jury should see Ill 10
award It was claimed in the answer
and the jury could consider this first, as
matter OF justification and then matter Of
mitigation OF damaQes-thst the plaintiff made
certain statements to the defendant In regard to
me condition Of her family. which he afterwards
say, from the evidence, whether she made any
representations or not and, II she did, what those
tute any justification BY this defendant they
must nave been representations made with
intent TO deceive Defendant, and upon which
must be REPRESENTATIONS material to the matter
which they then had In hand. The plaintiff denied
having made any representations, and stated here
what she said took place in regard TO these con-
versations In relation to her family. He also de-
tailed what ne understood her to say Before any
defence as justification Tor his breach or the con-
tract the Jury must md specifically what represent
any were TSs,s MADE no by c ner Sere
that thus .postponement was on account Of
any want Of good character the part OF plaintiff.
the question Of whether the plaintiff loved defend
ant at any time during this engagement and that
was 2 matter winch could best be determined
probably by taking the evidence OF the parties.
They must consider all this and then say as sensible
men. whether or not this matter would have pro-
want Of affection on the part OF plaintiff as had
been claimed by defendant. Now, as TO
the matter q damages this action
when case comes to be submitted to jury and
they shall say that an unjustifable breach OF q
partook OF the nature Of an action founded upon
wrong, what the law terms an action IN tort, and
wlde discretion Is left to the jury in determining
determine had been wrenged by the breach COM
planned or ana proved. In order that there might
Of o the Judge ead tine 1l
images; the Judge said that n there was
any evidence In this case that satisfied the Jury
that the defendant had intentionally nbelled the
plaintiff or sandered her, why. then, 1t would be
competent for them to give vindictive damages
Unless they were so satisfied they would not give
vindictive damages In conclusion, Judge Pratt
told the jury to consider as the three elements OF
the case, whether there was justifable breach OF
contract; whether the PLAINTIFFS affections were
implicated and injured and she had become at
tached to the defendant, and whatever mortihca-
tion and pain OF mind she had suffered by the re-
fusal OF the defendant to fulfil mis- promise.
BIB THE VERDICT.
The Jury remained out nearly an hour, when they
returned with = verdict In lavor OF planuf for
$4,000. r-. lid
The announcement was received with applause.
Mss Hammond was visibly affected. Dean was not
present, having lett just before the jury returned
HIS father however, was present
Arguments on motion Tor u new trial Will be
heard on Saturday. W