The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-12-02
LOVE IN COURT.
A RICHMOND YOUNG MAN SUED
FOR A BREACH OF PROMISE
TO a PRETTY NEW
YORK GIRL.
DAMAGES IN THE SUN OF $4,000 ASKED.
How Mr. Henry III. Meyer, of Richmond.
Became Enamoured of and Engaged TO
Miss Ida, the Pretty Daughter OF
Mr.. Mayer UIlman, and How
the Engagement was
Broken by Him.

the Engagement was
Broken by Him.
4 suit for a breach of promise to marry
was brought against Mr.. Henry II. Meyer,
Of this city, in the United States Cir
cult Court of New York city on Tues
day last by Miss Ida Ullman, Of that city.
Mr.. Meyer is the junior member Of the
well-known Broad-street dry-goods firm,
Julius Meyer & Son, and is young gen.
tleman Of excellent business standing and
irreproachable character in this cOmmu-
nifty. His many friends here, while SYM
pathizing with him and regretting the ne
cessary publicity given to private social
matters that must come out in such trial,
feel assured that he has gotten into this en-
tanglement through no fault Of head or
heart. The generosity OF his counsel in
declaring on Wednesday that they did not
impute to the young lady any misconduct
on the occasion which caused the breaking
of the match indicates that the whole affair
must have been the result OF misunder-
standing.
The following is condensed from the
Herald'S account Of the court proceedings
on Tuesday and Wednesday:
In the United States Circuit Court yes
/ terdav, before Judge Wallace and jury,
was commenced the trial OF suit for
$4,000 damages for an alleged breach OF
promise Of marriage. The plaintiff is a
young lady of great personal attractive
ness named Ida Uilman, daughter OF Mr.
| Mayer Ullman, a large cigar manufacturer
of this city, and the defendant (who was
present i'm COURT is Mr.. Henry ii. Meyer,
the Younger partner in the firm OF Julius
Never a. Son. dealers in dry goods and no.
tions at Richmond, Va. Mr.. Morris ,.
wise and Mr.. Louis II. Mayer appeared as
counsel for the plaintiff, and Messrs. Roger
A. PRYOR and Edward Rapallo for the de-
fendant. The court was crowded with
friends of the parties, among whom were a
large number Of ladies.
Mr.. Wise, in opening the case to the
iury, said that i'm December, 1879, the
nlaintiG was first visited by the defendant
at her fathers house; that he was accom-
panied by friend of hers, who introduced
/ him 10 her; that he called upon her after
ward very frequently, and that from that
time very pleasant intimacy was formed
between these two young people. When
ever the defendant visited the city on busi-
ness he never failed TO call upon her. On
the 3Ist OF August, 1880, he was on visit
10 her at her fathers house, and made
an engagement with her to go out riding
| i'm Central Park; that about s O'Clock
in the evening a barouche arrived at the
house. The plaintiff, the defendant, young
lady named Miss Leon and gentleman OF
the name OF Tompkins formed the party.
They drove to the Park and on "the road"
II was moonlight night, and this, with the
warmth of affection that the defendant ap-
peared 10 manifest toward the plaintif, en-
/ boldened him to avail himself OF that OPP
nortunity of ascertaining whether the love
/ he felt was reciprocated by the plaintiff; in
/ short, he did what was generally under
stood as cropping the question" MISS
! I-llman expressed her great surprise at the
/ suddenness OF the suggestion, but uitl-
matcly sigpified her acquiescence ana gave
her consent on the condition that her Ia
theirs approval was obtained.
FINAL ENGAGEMENT.
The defendant, after this momentous in
/ teryiew, left the city, but returned ON the
I
ITllman. accompanied by gentleman
friend; the defendant chided her ior not
kissing him, but she blushlngly told MN
| that her engagement was not yet puDic ana
/ that she was still awaiting her iather $ con-
| sent. and that that was the reason she de-
clined 10 kiss him before another gentleman.
This ayowal led TO the defendant having an
interview with the plaintiffs father. The
10
ON condition that the defendant on his re-
turn 70 Richmond obtained the approval of
his own parents TO the match, and II Mr.
IIlmon's inquiries as to the defendant
should prove satisfactory. On the 23d OF
October the defendant returned to the
plaintiffs house and announced with great
delight that his parents were greatly IN Ia
vor of tbe engagement, and that he expect
ed IN have a larger interest in his fathers
LuSiness He stated then that he should
I;le the marriage to take place in April.
On tbe 10th OF November the defendant
presented the plaintiil with diMn0nu rllls
as a token of their engagement. This pre-
sentation was made in the presence OF seve-
raj norties. and the solemnities were OBJ
served that are usual on such occasions IN
Jewish families.
CHARGES OF lNflDbl.ltb.
On the Goth OF January, after having
been in the city several days, the defend
ant called at the Ullman house in evident
Iy very different frame OF mind 10 that
Which had characterized his previous visits.
In n yery formal and cold manner ne de-
manded that the plaintiff should tell him
whether She had kept her promise TO nm.
She replied by inquiring what was the
matter with him. Her mother was present
when this was said, and he demanded tnal
he he Ieft alone with the plaintiff. Inc
,notber left the room, but at the request OF
the latter remqined within call OF her
daughter. The defendant then asked her
n II were not true that she had received
nresents Of diamond rings from seYerai
Gentlemen. She replied that she had re-
eeiyed a diamond ring from very ola gen
tIeman. AN old friend OF her family. lie
then asked her II she had not allowed
gentleman TO kiss her on New ear
5ighl. She said, in response, thal zen
tIeman. who was slightly elevated win
champagne, at party at her parents house
had tried 10 kiss her, but she did mol ailow
him 10 do II. The counsel then went on 70
explain The real ground OF the suit, when
was. In substance, that defendant, IN
,ysI...a ao!o,ou tones. and Win great