The daily intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Territory [i.e. Wash.]) 1876-1881, 1881-09-23
Friday, Sept. %. 1881.
a UNIQUE BREACH Of PROMISE CAS-:

A recent publication gives us the
opinion OF the Supreme Court OF Penn
sylyania ia breach Of promise case,
which presents some interesting facts
and decides some novel points OF law.
The plaintiff was domestic servant
and ihe defendant well - do farmer.
worth from ten to twelve thousand
dollars. After counting her assidu
ously and lovingly for nearly three
years, with all the buceolic accessories
OF church picnics. country parties aud
other rural entertainments, which in
good time fructified In q matrimonial
engagement. he suddenly discontinued
his visits, in consequence OF an inevita-
bic lovers quarrel. and as suddenly
transferred bis affections TO q hated
rival. But, worse than this. the hard
hearted man and his newly found mate
INDUCED in open demonstrations 10
church and elsewhere which were only
too plainly intended to cast ridicule
and insult upon the unhappy discarded
one. This was moro than the latter or
human nature could bear. Having be.
fore written in vain forgiving and
suppliant note to her faiihless suitor,
she now denounced him 10 the most
unsparing terms in long letter,
which became leading feature of the
idence and the law 10 the case. Still
addressing him by the once endearing
appellation Jim" she thinks " II is
sin and disgrace" reminds him that
II he imagines he has got rich one
now" he Is very much mistaken, as
every one knows how rich they are.'
and adds, triumphantly, Well. If am
poor. don't wear the one bat for five
or Elk years, like abe does, and turn it
hind part before like she does" Hav-
ing enjoyed that fling at her odious
rival. she frankly confesses that she
did wrong at first" but "pow don't
want you, and am going 10 use you as
bad as the law will allow me to do il.
Ii YOU we're poor / would not do any,
thing with you; so rich, so gossiping.
so deceitful, so fun making. UNDER
handed and sneaking, just pray night
and day for every hair in ycur head TO
come out"
Having relieved her feelings by Civ
ing the cruel wretch this piece of her
mind. she sought further consolation 10
an action for breach of promise. The
defendant pleaded; First. that be never
promised TO marry her; second. that he
did not refuse to marry her; third.
that she released him from his promise
TO marry her. The fair plaintiff won
the case and got two thousand dollars
damages. The appeal taken raised
among others the legal questions as to
whether the action could be main
tanned, in view of the fact that the de-
PENDANT had not formally refused to
marry the plaintiff or raised a legal
bar to such marriage by his nup,ials
with another, and whether the plaintiff
had not released the defendant from
the engagement by the letter from
viii b we have quoted. In overriding
the exceptions taken by tho defendant
and confirming the Judgment against
him. the Supreme Court tersely sums
up the law on the first points in these
words: at was not necessary that he
should say to her in express words. l
will not marry you,' nor that she
should run after him aud say entreat
you 10 marry me- Marriage is civil
contract. A refusal to fulfill IL may be
rs Enthusiastically manifested by con-
duct rs by words. The true question
was whether the acts aud conduct OF
the defendant evinced an intention to
be no longer bonnd by the contrsct,"
As to her letter. the Cour. ruled that
her expressed determination 10 use him
AS bal rs the law will allow" and
other reference to legal proceedings
amounted 10 an expressed notice that
she would hold him responsible for his
breach of contract.