The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1891-08-14
The Obligation to Answer Letters.

There is mn important difference between
tho Inv OF England and tho law In this
country In respect to the proof necessary to
maintain a suit for breach OF promise OF mar
rage. In New York, and We suppose in
most II not oil of tho States OF tho Union.
the plaintiff can make out her case. II the
Jury believe what che saye, by her own tes-
timony rs 10 the fact OF a promise; but 1t is
otherwise in England. There statutory
requirement exists tLnt there must be cor
rotorative evidence IT tho promise to marry.
Some material evidence III support Of such
promise" arc tie words Of the statute.
Under this law two interesting questions
have just been passed upon by the Court OF
Appeal in tho cnsc OF W1EpE1IANN against
WALpOLE. where the only proof relied upon
MS corroborative Of the plaintiffs statement.
that tho defendant hud promised ut Com
stant!nople TO marry her. consisted in tho
fact that the plaintiff hnd In her possession
II ring which Ind belonged to the defendant,
and tina. she had written him letter stat
ing that he had promised TO marry her. to
which letter he had never replied.
The first question considered by the court,
whose opinion was delivered by Lord EsHER.
tho Master OF the Rolls. was whether the de-
PENDANTS failure to answer the plaintiffs
letter was any evidence at oil that he had
actually entered into an engagement Of
marriage with her. No doubt there are
cases in which the receipt OF letter anu its
retention without making any response may
properly lie proved us tending to show an
assent on the part OF the person to whom
1t is written to some OF tho state
ments which it contains. This, how
ever, Is generally where the letter is Of
such character that In the ordinary course
Of business transactions tho letter would DC
answered unless accepted as correct, Lord
TENTERDEN many years ago declared: "What
Is said toa man before his face. he Is in some
degree called on to contradict. II he does not
acquiesce In 1t; but the not answering O
letter is quite different; and it ia too much
to say that man by emitting to answer a
letter at all events admits the truth Of the
statements that the letter contains" Sothe
Master Of tho Rolls holds in this brench OF
promise case that the nero fact OF a state
ment OF promise to marry being contained
In letter, and the letter not being answered.
is not evidence by way OF Decentralization. 1t is
not the ordinary course Of mankind, lie Oh
serves, to answer letters charging an offence
or something OF that nature. IF it were,
ones life would be unbearable for oil man
would have to do would be to write such let
ters day after day, when II not answered.
that would be brought forward as some evil
dence OF the truth OF the charge" There
might be circumstances In the course OF O
correspondence which would render the
failure to answer q letter tantamount to an
admission OF some fact in favor OF the writer;
but the learned Judge did not think this was
such case.
As to the ring; the Master Of the Rolls In.
timated that no sensible person could think
that the possession OF this ring by tho plain
till was corroborative evidence in her favor
1t was not wedding ring or an engagement
ring, but was the defendants own signet
ring. He asserted that she had stolen it from
him. but she testified that he gave 1t to her.
The view OF both questions adopted by the
Court Of Appeal is in accordance with COM
mon sense as we'll as good law. It would be
intolerable to establish a rule OF evidence
which would practically compel men to an
swer every letter they might receive contain.
ing untrue statements as to their past con-
duct. AS to the ring. its character, even IL
the plaintiff testified truly in saying that
the defendant gave 1t to her, was not such
as to indicate that it had any relation to a
promise OF marriage. II it had been an en-
gagement ring or wedding ring. however,
the court would undoubtedly have held that
the plaintiffs possession OF 1t amounted to
corroborative proof OF her assertion that the
defendant had promised to marry her.