The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1894-12-28

the county of Blue Earth and St. Paul
in the county of Ramsey and at divers
other places in consideration of the
plaintiff being unmarried, had then
and there promised to marry him, de-
PENDANT promised to marry her with
in reasonable time. That reasonable
time elapsed and the defendant still
neglected and refused to marry her;
and the plaintiff further in substance
alleges that in the month of May 1889,
at MankatO, in the county of Blue
Earth, and at Minneapolis in the
county of Hennepin, and at st. Paul
in the county of Ramsey, and at
divers other places in consideration of
the plaintiff being unmarried, had
then and there promised at defend
ants request to marry him after the
death of defendants mother, the de-
| PENDANT within a reasonable time
after the death of his mother, and
that defendants mother died on the
| 30th day of December, 1892, and that
the plaintiff after the lapse of a rea-
sOnable time after the death of the
defendants said mother requested the
| defendent to keep his promise and
marry her, and that he ever neglected
and refused so to do, and for an alleged
| failure of the defendant to perform
his marriage contract the plaintiff in
| this action seeks to recover damages
in the sum of S50,000.00.
'"The defendant answers the COM
plant Of the plaintiff and denies each
and every allegation contained in the
complaint so that it will devOlve on
the plaintiff to prove them so far as
| they are material in this action eX-
cept the allegation that the defend
ant married Roma j. Allen, as alleged
in the complaint which he admits.
Aside from this denial and admission
the plaintiff for defense and in
mitigation of damages substantially
alleges that at the times mentioned
in the complaint the plaintiff was and
many years prior thereto had been
and still is an unchaSte, immoral and
disSOlute woman, and for period of
time commencing about the year 1888
and prior thereto, and continues to
the present time with the exception
of a period of six months of the time
embraced in the PLAINTIFFS complaint,
and whilst the plaintiff was in the
employ of defendant as hOusekeeper
in defendants hotel at MankatO, the
plaintiff at the cities of Denver,
Omaha, St. Paul, Minneapolis and
Chicago, has followed the occupation
| both as a keeper of houses of ill-fame
and that of a common prostitute, and
occupant of houses of that character,
and during all of said time, with the
| exception of said six months, was a
woman of VIGOROUSLY lewd, unchaste
and immoral character, and to all in
tents and purposes common prosti-
tute, and an unfit person to marry
and prays that the plaintiff take moth
| ing by this action.
''The plaintiff replies to the defend
ants answer and denies all the allie
cations of unchastity, immortality,
lewdness and misconduct and drunk
enneSS with which she is charged in
the answer, and alleges that such acts
are not true, yet the defendant, with a
| full knowledge of the same renewed
his said promise to marry her, as
charged in the answer, and prayS
| Judgment as in her complaint.
"The plaintiff up to and for some
years prior to the 30th day of NOvem-
| Der, 1889, was married woman, and
| she became a single woman by reason
of a divorce from her then husband on
the.3Oth day of November, 1889. The
complaint alleges the marriage prom
Use and engagement between the
plaintiff and defendant May, 1889, but
| the plaintiff was then married
woman, and did not become single
woman until the 30th day of Novem-
Der, 1889. when she was divorced from
her husband.
"No marriage promise or en-
gagement made or entered into
while the plaintiff was a mar
ried woman could be of any bind
ing force or effect; it would be abso-
lutely void and of no effect as a con-
| tract.
"But the plaintiff claimed and testi-
fed that after the divorce from her
husband, and in December 1889, she
and the defendant mutually promised
| and agreed to marry each other, and,
in fact, entered into a marriage en-
gagement, and for the first time after
the 30th day of November, 1889. The
plaintiff was then competent to enter
| into a marriage contract. If the
plaintiff and defendant mutually
promised to marry each other at any
| = - 4, RI tho I;uOroo 80 81, -