Connecticut western news., 1881-11-16
PROMISES TO MARRY.
A New and Startling Phase of
 Brooches of Promise Gases.
From the New York Stt,l.1

l marriage mas been brought to hflal 1n Canada that involves some points of general interest. John Faulkner, 8 bachelor, owning property to the amount of forty or fifty thousand dollars, promised to marry Mrs. Jane Tillson, a widow whose husband had been one of his tenants and written memorandum of the agreement was drawn up and day set for the ceremony. Very soon, however, Faulkner seems to have re- pented of his step, and when the day appointed for the marriage arrived, he was not ready to proceed, and the ceremony had to be postponed. He was always unprepared to enter upon matrimony when the decisive moment arrived; but Mrs. Tillson was always ready, and clung to him patiently.
 Finally, he seems to have struck upon the idea of treating her in such rude and insulting manner in the presence of other persons that it would be i'm possible for her to submit to it without degradation. She discontinued her efforts to 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 counsel, then and there to marry her. It was plainly impossible for her at that stage of their relations, with any sense of decency or self-respect, to accept th1s offer .and yet the Judge was forced to say that he did not see how the suit could be maintained under the existing law, if she declined it.
 Breach of promise law, as 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 then too late; but different
 
 contracts of marriage.
 The plaintiffs counsel argued that the defendant. by his intolerable conduct, had made it impossible for her to &C., cept his offer at that stage, and that this distinguished the case from others; but Judge Cameron doubted the sound ness of the distinction. Moreover" said he in effect, s'the meaner you prove this defendant to have been, the less damage do you prove, and the weaker do you make your ground for recover ing verdict. You sue for damages in cured 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 be- haved so contemptibly that if he per sisted in his refusal it ought to be re- garded as a benefit rather than an in- jury to her." The plaintiffs counsel argued that his client lost 8 share in the defendants property, to which she would have been entitled as his wife. The Judge, however, adhered to his view of the case, and although he finally allowed it to go to trial, it was with in- structions to the jury that caused them very speedily to bring in verdict for the defendant
 It 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 large proportion of Englishmen. But the answer to this and a sufficient one-has been that there ought to be some remedy for the injury that may be done to 8 confding woman by faithless man, who, after permit ting 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 clearly in the power of any man, if he be suffi- ciently mean, to break such promise 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 a course of such cruel conduct toward her as no woman can endure; and if this does not suffice to free him, he can fatly refuse to fulfill his promise, compel her tc bring suit, wait until the case is ready for trial, and offer to comply with his contract then, but in so contemptuout and offensive manner as would forbic the acceptance of the offer. The more outrageous his behavior, the weaker the cause of action against him.
 It may be said that in one sense Judg. Cameron is right, and that woman ought to be glad to escape marrying such fellow; but it cannot be denied that if he disguises his true character and leaves her to wait for him unti other matrimonial chances are practi caIly lost, she has been subjected to in justice, for which there ought to b, some remedy, even if it be by way o punishing him rather than of compensa tion 10 her. Many women would neve
 think of seeking redress for such
 wrong in the courts yet there may b
 cases in which they ought to have tn l right to do so. As society is consti tuted the question of marriage is nor y important to the average woman thal 3 any business venture to the averag l man but it is clearly not so well pro f tected in law.
 1 DANGEROUS. - Walter Seymour,