The Dakota chief. (Gann Valley, Buffalo County, S.D.) 18??-1913, 1894-01-25
MARRIAGE ENGAGEMENT.

Decision Wh.ch Will Encourage Breach Of
Promise Suits.
EditOrially reviewing a recent case.
the San Francisco Argonaut saws:
A New York court has Just decid-
ed what a ''marriage engagement"
means. 1t is a question often dis.
cussed among young people. Such a
promise, being a covenant. is often
supposed to rest on the same footing
as other covenants-that is to say. it
is imagined that it involves a specific
offer of marriage by the man and q
specific acceptance by the girl.
But that is not the doctrine laid
down by Chief-Justice Church in
the case of Homan versus Earle. He
said:
Contracts OF marriage are unlike all
others. They concern the highest interests
OF human lie and enlist the tenderest sym.
pathies OF the human heart, and the acts
and declarations done and implied by parties
negotiating them are often correspondingly
DELICATE and emotional. AS a matter of law.
the learned Juugo was clearly right in hold
ing that no formal language is necessary to
constitute the contract of marriage. Ii Tie
conduct and declarations of the parti. IS
clearly indicate that theyiregard themselves
as engaged. it is not material by what mcans
they nave arrived at that state"
The same principles have Just been
affirmed by the general term of the
supreme Court of the fourth judicial
department of New York, in IL case
which was appealed from Chenango
County.
In fhlE P0Cn q VnIlnT man nNo%
girl at a prayer-meeting and was 10.
troduced to her. They attended the
same church and the same PRAYER
meetings, and he usually escorted her
home. This went on for two or
three years, during which the girl
received no visits from other young
men. 1t does not appear that the
gentleman ever spoke of love or mar
rage; though he did tell the girl he
had never met a young lady whom he
regarded more h: hly, that he longed
to protect her, and, if he lived, he
would make her happy. Some con-
versatiOn passed between them on
the subject Of a hcu.e which the
man proposed to buy; he showed anX-
iety to choose a house that would
please her. Still. he did not come to
the point, and, the lady's patien'
being at last worn out she sued h..
for breach of promise, and the jury
found that his conduct did constitute
an implied prom sc of marriage. A
verdi t of So. 600 damages was given
to the lady, and this verdict has now
been affirmed 10y the general term.
The rule apparently does not work
both ways. A girl is always free to
break Off an engagement, however
formal it may ha e been it is the
privilege Of the sex to change its
mind. With the more reason. Il girl
may break an engagement which has
been implied, but not expressed. AS
a rule, it does not help a girl to &C
quire the reputation of Il jill But
some o. the most distinguished and
popular women Of the day have had
episodes of the kind in their early
career.
Perhaps it might be worth the
while OF the advanced thinkers who
clamor for the absolute equality Of
the sexes to try to reconcile the in
c%ongruity between their philosophy
asfd the claims Of women to special
pre-nuptial consideration. It is per-
fectIy obvious that a man who went
to law TO ask for damages from a girl
who had Tilted HIM would be laughed
out of court; yet girls sue for breach
of promise, not only on the senti-
mental ground of a broken heart, but
on the more practical contention
that their matrimonial market has
been spoiled. Ladies justify the dis
tinction by arguing that a girl has
only a brief season during which she
can make hay, while a man may
marry so long as he has breath in his
body,