The Van Buren press., 1876-04-11
Ql ~. NO. 2
fAs Law = cssstsAAy.
4 wc1Ah uAs rrnSscS 1lsnT 10 coCssf
4 NAE n m Donen'7 onenc7. 0

wonfAh HAS 4 PKnDxCg n1enT 10 COCa9i
NAE ~ N Donsx'7 oHsnc1. !.
All marriage inclined ladiss should
have been IN attendance Ia the Commou
Pleas No 3 yesterday, In order 70 b able
70 reap full fruitioD from their leap year
privileges.
The hrsach Of promiss case Of Cosntll
". Blue vas argued, the jury we're shssn.
ed and retired, and at the close OF Court.
had not made Up their minds - to thsir
duty In the case. &
NJ. Rsardos. 10 hIa aseumsat ~ the
tfsfsaee claimed that II guy coussinx Va
dosse = I'll. Il was done By The plaintiff
herself, and claimed the sams professions
fos biz clisnt o would be accorded him
Weso he weaker vessel 'saA
Nj. AcKenna claimed that the evidsacs
ehOwed the existence Of contract, AID
that Ne client bad sustained injury Ar
dsfsadast's deception.
Following u the wy ths judge looked
at the matter: :. To be entitled to recover
there must have been an actual contract
ofmarriage catered into between the par.
ties Mere courtship,no matter how long |,
lasted, wsuld not make acontract. For.
merly, when the pa:ties themselves were
not permitted to testify, the fact OF long
continued courtship was very strong es-
idence OF q contract. 1t generally hap
pened, the Judge said, that when such
contracts 40 these were made, tue occa
sion was conspicuous for the absence of
witnesses, and hence Il was that close q.
tentions went very far to prove the soa-
tract But it was not % now. The par
ties themselves being witnesses, the con.
tract must be proven BY direcVtestimony.
The fact Of courtship. Of course, has u
weight as circumstance, but IL 10 not
conclusive. It's custom for eentleaDeas
to pay their addresses to ladies', and No
for ladies to seek out and follow gentle
men. Indeed, this custom 10 so STRICTLY
adheared to that one naturally rccoils as
the idea Of lady undertaking to rsvsrss
II. But still she has . right to do Il.
There was no law to prevent her. asd ~
en- !! she did All the coprtisg and unAds
the proposition Of marriage, the delen-
dant was liable II be accepted the psopo-
sition. II the defendant agreed to n6ssy
her, even II he never had any inisniiOs
Of carrying out his promise, he wss IL
BILE. Still Il was not incumbent upen hin
to treat her rudely, merely bscauas ~
did not want to marry her. He adulA.
tod that be did accept presents non ~,
and hs had rightto do d, bst - -
not at liberty TO dasignsdly do o. say ~.
thing which would lead her 70 belisVe
that be nent to marry her. 6omsshisg
more than acts were needed 10 make apsS
: contract. Declsrations we're necesaasy,
and II the defendant when in converts
tion on the subject VI marriage, ssid thAl
he would " make Il oil right wilA hss,r
ard meant thereby that he would nasy
cient. IL was NOS nsces5nfy III Nf-
special form b observed Ia the contrses.,
Bu the defendant denied that be had o.
or made such remark and the Jury would
have to sscertain whether he did OF nUs
II the defendant were guilty OF thps
breach of promise. lie ought TO coinpeNs
safe the plaintiff for what she had cxpeh,
ded for him in tue way Of presents, aid
be made to pay Just what the jury shculd
think she WAS entitled to, by reason VI
the manner 10 which her affections tid
been triaed with, and herself held Up tO
public scorn as rejected sutior. .,