New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-11-27

anxious TO get out of it; and that he has been
forced to see his name paraded m the news
papers after fashion quite sufficient to drive
sensitive man into luDacy. The young
woman, though she has made no money out OF
this particular transaction, has had her little
revenge. But though she has subjected the
defendant to so much annoyance, she has la
mentally failed in the general speculation.
Her object was money, and she Will get none'
On the contrary, if she had any to spend, she
has probably spent it, and her losses III other
respects are of a kind which Fifty Dollars will
hardly repair. No matter how many times she
may hereafter fall upon the sidewalk, the
most gallant passer by will be cautious about
assisting her to rise. A lady who has been
looked at for a week by the spectators
in crowded court of justice is sure to
become pretty well known to great numbers
of people. We question whether Miss Martinez
will ever have another opportunity OF bringing
an action for breach Of promise OF marriage.
Nominal damages like those given in this
suit carry with them no weight whatever.
Technically the jury say that the defendant
did promise to marry the plaintiff in manner
and form as set forth in her declaration
but substantially the finding amounts to
an OpiniOn that she has suffered no
damages because the defendant failed
to keep his word. The jurors, good
honest men, do not like to find plumply and
unreservedly against a woman in such situa-
ton but they have natural sympathy for
gentleman in danger of being swindled; and
80 they gave the plaintiff verdict which may
g nyI,il will dn-
PENDANT little or nothing. This course is one
of which the judicious will highly approve.
Those who have paid attention to the
recent trial must hope sincerely that the
damages awarded will tend to diminish
the number Of such cases. They are
not wholesome. They occupy, with their
prurient Details altogether too much OF the
public attention, and of the time OF the tn
bunas. But it is not these details which,
even in the interests of Clearly morality, re-
dure the most serious consideration. Inc
main mischief is in the leyity with which
such trials are conducted, and the irreyerence
with which the sacred institution OF marriage
is treated, as if truth. honor, purity and love
were one great jest. 1t is impossible to Tree
suit of this kind from mercenary talnt, ana
the very attempt to fix money value upon
bghted affections is in itself enough to tempt the
shafts of wit of humor and of burlesque. Amllse-
ment from the evidence is always expected by
the listeners, or by those who read the nara
tive, nor are they usually disappointed. Inc
gross familiarity with which matters usually
regarded as sacred are treated. must in some
minds naturally bring them into degree OF
contempt For it will be remembered that the
institution of marriage, secularized as 1t has
been by modern legislation, is essentially OF
religious nature, and in many cOmmunions is
regarded and reverenced as a sacrament.
procedure for breach of promise vulgar
ICES this, rates it as only a bargain, and
treats a failure to enter into the honorable
state of matrimony just as 1t would treat
failure to deliver Goals or cotton according to
contract The plaintiff, woman or man, brings
in bundle of letters which throw court and
Jury and bar into commissions of laughter, and
when the lawyer for the defense facetiously
argues the case, he treats condolences which
were probably mt the time sincere, as II they
were the common comedy stock of the theater,
while even the aggravation OF betrayal and
ruin cannot always secure serious con-
sideratiOn of one of the greatest OF
crimes as well as of misfOrtunes. Cases may
undoubtedly occur in which woman who has
been wronged is justified in appealing to the
courts for redress, but it seldom happens that
she who feels such wrong the most bitterly is
found asking for the consolation of damages
estimated in dollars and cents. 1t is not Won
derful when gross cupidity is found to be the
chief element of the suit that jurors show
their contempt for it by putting the inevitable
damages at a minimum. The action Is not of
a kind to be encouraged; it almost always
reeks with coarseness or is smirched by vul-
garity; and though it can hardly be abolished
while marriage remains a civil contract, it
may well he wished as infrequent if not as
unproductiye as possible.