The daily gazette., 1878-05-16
Breach f Promise.

coURTING AT OAK HALL-How POOR
WORKING GIRLS RUIN WAS EFFECT
ED.
In Judge MitchelPs Court Philadelphia
Elizabeth McKeown brough suit against
Thomas Brown to recover damages for /
breach of promise of marriage. The !
plaintiff is a tall slender woman, while /
her wasted cheek and hollow cough show
that the sands of her life are neary run
| out. The defendant in the case is named
Thomas Brown. He is married and is
the brother-in-aw of John Wanamaker, /
one of the proprietors of Oak Hall, which
| figures in the case as the shop where the
| counting was carried on. Eliz ,beth's
story, as stated under oath, was that she
came to this country about ten years ago
| aud, after supporting herself in various
families with her needle, obtained po-
sition in Wanamaker x Browns store
| known as Oak Hall. 1t was while en-
gagged in this establishment in 1873 that
She became acquainted with Mr.. Brown,
who was employed by the firm.
The acquaintance ripened very quickly
into intimacy, and night after nj 5ht found
| him in her company. She said she thought
he was an awful good man. He present.
ed her with two Bibles and two Moody
and SaDkey hymn books ,and every night
he read "a chapter from the Bible, and
their volces mingledin the "Sweet Bye
and Bye" AT last the critical moment
came, and he asked her to be his wife.
| To make his avowlmore binding, he took
| the little gilt-edged Bible, which he had
given her, and swore that she should be
his wife, and then, to clinch it, got her
to make oath that she would be true to
him. This was rs good as being married
he said, and only wanted the form to
make them one. The old, old story fol-
lowed, with multiplied sins.
L.. "A 81. L. IL. l.,
began his letters with "My Dear Wife,
and made use of expressions which assur
ed her he intended to make her Mrs
Brown. In June, 1874, it was apparent
that she was in "a fair way of becoming 8
: mother. Then it was she said he forced
her to Camden, and there the operation
was performed that undermined hel
health.
When closely questioned by the op
posing counsel, the witness, with man,
| signs of emotion, exclaimed: eff Goo
| was to stand here now, He would sa,
that what have said is true. Look a
, me-" she exclaimed, "My face was no
pale and my eye was not sunken then.
am ruined in health. / am ruined every
way, and do you think I would come in
to this court to be made out common
prostitute ?"
For the defense Browns lawyer at
tempted to prove that Miss McKeowl
was aware that he was married; and tina
during this peroid his mental condition
was such that he was not accountable TO
his acts and that She, through the bland
ishments of the sex, led him where sh
would. The servant girl in the famil
of the defendant testified that she fire
quently saw the plaintiff in the viciDit
. of his house, aud npon one occasi on sh
entered the dwelling, fell upon her knee
and begged of Mrs. Brown that sh
would ask her husbands pardon fC
le what she had done. This was subs,
quently denied, however, by the rlail
tiff.
There was other evidence to show thf
the plaintitfmust have known that Brow
was married before their introductio
from conversations regarding HIM in th
work room of Wanamaker q Brown
store. Mrs. Brown was called to til
mr. stand in behalf of her husband, bu
'- although he was in Court, he was NJ
placed upon the stand to deny any pa
Of the plaintiffs statement. This fa
counsel for Miss McKeown dwelt upo
-, with great force.
~ The charge of the Court was brief, I'll
- point dwelt upon most being that IL
jury should satisfy itself that the plainti
was not aware of Brown being marie
at the time of the engagement Aft
being out but brief period, the ,jur.
ID who evidently regarded the statemel
about Browns mental condition as beii
a very thin story, rendered verdict II
81, ,250 III favor of the plaintiff.