The New York herald., 1875-11-10
BREACH OF PROMISE.


YOUNG LADY WHO WENT TO EUROPE WITH
MR.. BROWN SUING FOR SIXTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS FOR BREACH or PROMISE OF
MARRIAGE.
TRENTON N. J., Nov 0, 1878
In the Supreme Court in this city to-day, before
Chief Justice Beasley and Judges Depue, Woodruff and
yansyckei, the Noice-Brown breach OF promise OF
marriage case came up for argument demurrer aed
to the general declaration The declaration sets forth in
substance that in the months Of March and April 1879
the plaintiff being then and there unmarried, the defend
ant pretended that he was married man who had
been living in of separation from his wife for
the space OF two years and Gye months, with the do
termination never live with her again under any cir
cumstances whatever; and between whom the said
defendant alleged and pretended that proceedings had
beon or were about instituted for the purpose Of
obtaining divorce, pinculo psatrimonii by tho said
wife; he the said defendant undertook and then
and there faithfully promised the said paintno marry
her in a reasonable time next following
And the plaintiff AYERS that the wife of the defendant
did obtain divorce from the defendant cincuo mat
raaonii in reasonable time after the making OF the
promise.
And the plaintiff sti further that the defendant
was Judged and decreod divorced viaco ndtrinon
from his wife upon the petition of said wife, fled in the
Court OF Chancery Of the State New Jersey the
18th Of October, 1874 And tho plaintiff by reason Of
such refusal the part OF the defendant TO marry her
that she has sustained loss to the sum OF OO0
THB ARGUMENTS.
Mr. John +. Hageman argued the case on behalf OF
the defendant He said that promise alleged to
have been made after the divorce granted The
promise made valid in law, because the defend
ant was lawfully married at the time IL was made
After citing authorities in support OF the
demurrer, Mr.. Hageman concluded by submitting the
following points,
First-That the performance Of the promise i'm
possible and could not be enforced.
Second-The promise is void because it was without
consideration.
TAird-It IS void because 1t is Illegal, immoral and
contrary public policy; the plaintiff knowing at tho
time the promise was made thai the defendant was a
married man.
Mr.. w. Y. johnson argued in support Of the decara-
tion.
The Court then took the papers and reserved de-
cision.
For the past six months this has excited great
deal Of interest throughout the state The well known
standing OF the parties the history OF their tour TO
the suit and the knotty and delicate points OF law
raised make the Of thrilling and unprece-
dented Importance Both parties reside in Princeton
aud the defendant is the only heir Of very wealthy
plaintiff, a few weeks ago, received verdict
for about 81, 500 from the defendant on
account Of her wardrobe, which she proved the de-
iendant had taken from her The particulars Of the
Continental tour and OF the suit for rover have already
appeared in the HERALD. The public will now
anxiously await the decision OF the supreme Court,
which ii it should be In favor OF the plaintiff the case
will he tried before the Mercer County Circuit Court at
Trenton, when all the details OF the tour and tho nci
DENTS &C, relating the alleged breach of promise
be produced by the plaintiff which will give the novel
case renewed interest,