Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1881-10-26
UNIQUE BREACH OF PROM
ISE CASE.

! A recent publication gives US the
opinion of the Supreme Court of Penn
sylvania in a breach of promise case
which presents some interesting facts
and decides some novel points of law.
The plaintiff was domestic servant
and the defendant we'll to do farmer,
worth from ten 20 twelve thousand
dollars. After courting her assidu-
ously and loving for nearly three
years, with all the bucolic accessories
of church pic-nics, country parties and
other rural entertainments, which in
good time fructifed in matrimonial
engagement, he suddenly discontinued
his visits in consequence of an inevita-
BILE lovers quarrel and as suddenly
transferred his affections to a hateful
rival But, worse than this, the hard
hearted man and his newly found
mate ndulged in open demonstrations
in church and elsewhere which were
only too plainly intended to cast ridi-
cule and insult upon the unhappy and
discarded one. This was more than
the latter or human nature could bear.
Having before written in vain a for
giving and suppliant note to her faith
less suitor she now denounced him in
the most unsparing terms in a long
letter which became a leading feature
of the evidence and the law in the case
Still addressing him by the once en-
dearing appellation 'Jim,' she thinks
it is sin and disgrace, reminds him
that if he lmagines he has got rich
one now he is very much mistaken, as
every one knows how rich they are,
and adds, triumphantly, We'll, if 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 Hav-
ing enjoyed this fling at her odious
rival she frankly confesses that she
did wrong at first but now l don't
want you and am going to use you as
bad as the law will allow me to do it,
If you were poor 1 would not do any
thing with you; so rich, so grasping,
so deceitful, so fun making, underhand-
ed and sneaking, l just pray night
and day for every hair in you head to
come out
Having relieved her feelings by Civ
ing the cruel wretch this piece of her
mind she sought further consolation in
an action for breach of promise. The
defendant pleaded-First, that he new
er promised to marry her second, that
he did not refuse to marry her; and,
third, that she released him from his
promise to marry her. The fair plain
tiff won the case and got two thous-
and dollars damages. 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 formally refused
to marry the plaintiff or raised a legal
bar to such marriage by his nuptials
with another, and whether the plain
tiff had not released the defendant from
the engagement by the letter from
which we have quoted. In overruling
the exceptions taken by the defendant
and confirming the judgment against
him the Supreme Court tersely sums
up the law on the first point in these
words 1t was not necessary that he
should say to her in express words, 4
will not marry you,' nor that she
should run after him and say, L err
treat you to marry me- Marriage is
a civil contract. A refusal TO fulfil it
may be as unmistakably manifested by
conduct as by words. The true ques-
tion 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 determination to use
him as bad as the law will allow and
other references to legal proceedings,
amounted to an expressed notice that
she would hold him responsible for
bis breach of contract-N. Y. Herald.