The Red Cloud chief., 1881-12-22
Promtses 10 Marry.

n sJit Tor preach Oh pFofni.e VI mar
rage has been brought TO trial in Can
ada that involves some points OF general
interest John Faulkner. . bachelor.
owning property 10 the amount OF forty
or fifty thousand dollars. promised TO
marry Mrs Jane Tillson. \ widow whose
husband hsd been one Of his tenants
and n written memorandum OF The
agreement was drawn up and a day set
for the ceremony. Very soon. however.
Faulkner seems TO have repented of his
step. and when the day appointed for
the marriage arrived. he was no; ready
10 proceed, and the ceremony had TO be
postponed. He was always UMPIRE
pared to enter upon matrimony when
the decisive moment arrived; but Mrs
Tillson was always ready. and chung 70
him patiently.
Finally, he seems TO have struck upon
the idea of treating her in such q rude
and insulting manner in the presence
OF other persons that il would be i'm
possible for her TO submit 70 it without
degradation. She discontinued her
efforts 10 bring the marriage about, and
commenced suit against him for breach
of promise, claiming damages in the
sum of five thousand dollars.
Faulkner did not improve in his
offensive behavior toward the plaintiff
after the suit was instituted; but when
the case was called in court for trial. he
took the whole foundation from under
her feet by offering. through his coun-
sci. then AMI there to marry her. Ii
was plainly impossible for her at that
stage of their relations, with any sense
of decency or self-respect, TO accept
this oder; aud yet the Judge was forced
to say that he did not see how the suit
could be maintained under the. existing
law, il she declined it J
Breach of promise law, rs frequently
laid down in the courts. is peculiar in
this respect. In other contracts. if
there is a refusal to perform. and suit
for damages for the breach is COM
menced, an offer TO carry out the agree
ment is hen too late; but n different
rule has been enunciatcd in respect TO
contracts of marriage.
The plaintiffs counsel argued that
the defendant, by his intolcrable con-
duct, had made it impossible for
her to accept his offer at that stage, and
that this distinguished the case from
others; but Judge Cameron doubted the
soundness of the distinction. More
over" said he in effect, 1.-THE "a
you prove this defendant to have been.
the less damage do you prove, and the
weaker do you make your ground for
recovering a verdict. You sue for
damages incurred by this mans refusal
to marry the plaintiff. In the first
place, he says he now Is willing to
marry. and in the second place you
show him to have behaved so contempt
IDLY that if he persisted in his refusal it
ought to be regarded rs a benefit rather
than an injury to her" The plaintiffs
share in the defendants property. to
which she would have been entitled as
his wife. The Judge, however. ad-
hered to his view of the case. and
although he finally allowed it to go to
trial, it was administrations to the jury
that caused them very speedily to bring
in a verdict for the defendant.
1t has often been said that breach of
promise suits ought not to be favored;
and recent action of the House Of Com
mons shows that such is the sentiment
entertained by a large proportion of
Englishmen. But the answer to this
and sufficient one--has been that there
ought to be some remedy for the in
jury that may be done to a contiding
Woman by a faithless man, who, after
permitting her to wait for years in the
belief that he would fulfill a promise to
marry her. heartlessly forsakes her.
If, however, the view of the law taken
by Judge Cameron is correct, it is clear
ly in the power of any man, if he be
sufficiently mean, to break such a prom
Use and still avoid legal liability for it.
When he gets ready TO discard the
woman to whom he has pledged his
faith, he need only begin q course of
such cruel conduct toward her as no
woman can endure; and if this does
not suffice to free him. he can fatty re-
fuse to fulfill his promise, compel her
to begin suit, wait until the case is
ready for trial. and offer to comply
with his contract then, but in so con-
temptuous and offensive q manner rs
would forbid the acceptance of the
offer. The more outrageous his beha-
vior, the weaker the cause of action
against him.
1t may be said that in n sense
Judge Cameron is right, and that a
woman ought to be glad to escape
rying such a fellow; but it cannot be
denied that if he DISCUSSES his true char
acter, and leads her to wait for him
until other matrimonial chances are
practically lost, she has been subjected
to injustice, for which there ought to be
some remedy. wen if it be by way of
Furnishing him rather than Of compen-
sation TO her. Many women would
never think of seeking redress for such
a wrong in the courts; yet there may
be cases in which they ought to have
the right to do SO. As society is con-
stituted, the prospect of marriage is
more important to the average woman
than any business venture to the aver
age man; but it is clearly not so well
protected in lawn. Y. Sun.