The daily gazette. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1874-1883, 1881-09-07
A Unique Breach of Promise Ca.


A recent publication gives us the opin-
ion Of the Supreme Court OF Pennsyl-
vania In breach of promise case which
presents some interesting facts and de-
cides some novel points of law, The
plaintiff was domestic servant and the
defendant o we'll to do farmer, worth
from ten to twelve thousand dollars. AZ
ter courting her assiduously aud loving
ly for nearly three years, with all the
bucolic accessories OF church plcnics,
country parties and other rural enter
tainments, which in good time fructlied
IN a matrimonial engagement, be sud-
denly discontinued bis visits in conse =
qnence of an ineyitable lovers quarrel
and as suddenly transferred bis affec-
tions to hated rival. But, worse than
this, the hard hearted man and his newly
found mate iDdulged In open demonstra-
tions In church and elsewhere which
were only too plainly intended to cast
ridicule and insult upon the unhappy
discarded one. This was more than the
latter or human nature could bear.
Having before written In vain forgiv
ing and suppliant note to her faithless
suitor sbe now denounced him In the
most unsparing terms in long letter
which became a leading feature OF the
evidence and the law In the case. Still
addressing him by the once endearing
appellation "Jim," she thinks "it Is q
sin and q disgrace" reminds him that
II he imagines he has 'got rich one
Dow"~he Is very much mistaken, as
"every one knows how rich they are"
and adds, triumphantly, "Well. i'll am
poor, don't wear the one hat for five or
six years, like she does, and turn IT hind
part before like she does" Having en-
joyed this fling at her odious rival she
frankly confesses that she "did wrong
at trst," but "now don't want you and
am going 10 use you as bad as the law
will allow me TO do it. If you were poor
l would not do anything with you; so
rich, so gossiping, so deceitful, 80 fun
making, underhanded aud sneaking,
just pray night and day for every hair in
your head TO come out"
Having relieved her feelings by giving
the cruel wretch this piece of her mind
she sought further consolation In an ac-
tion for breach of promise. Ihe defen-
dant pleaded First, that never prom
ised to marry her; second, that he did
uot Ictu5c W mbiTy hci, ahuy tuuO, tuht
she released him from his promise 10
marry her. The fair plaintiff won the
case and got two thousand dollars dam
ages. The appeal taken raised among
Others the legal questions whether The
action could be maintained, In view of
the fact that the defendant had not for
mally refused to marry the plaintiff or
raised a legal bar to such marriage by
his nuptials with another, and whether
the plaintiff had not released the defen-
dant from the engagement by the letter
from which we have quoted. In over
ruling the exceptions taken by the de-
fendant and cor orfirming the judgment
against him the Supreme Court terseiy
sums up the law on the fist point In
these words:-"It was not necessary that
he should say to her in express words, Il
will not marry you,' nor that she should
run after him and say, Il entreat You to
marry me. Marriage is civil contract.
A refusal 10 fulfil 1t may be as uDmis-
takably manifested by conduc. as by
words. The true question was whether
the acts and conduct of the defendant
evinced an intention to be no longer
bound by the contract" As to her letter,
the Court ruled that her expressed de-
termination TO use him "as bad as the
law will allow" and other references to
legal proceedings, amouRted TO an ex-
pressed notice that she would hold him
responsible for his breach of contract.