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

s'This the plaintiff denies absolute
ly, and / charge you, gentlemen
Of the jury, you find from
the evidence and all the facts
and circumstances Of the case proven
to your satisfaction that during the
time that plaintiff and defendant
We're under the promise to marry, ii
such promise there was, after Novem-
Der Both, 1889, and up to October 18th,
1893, she prostituted her person to
other men than the defendant, then
such acts on her part would absolutely
release the defendant from his prom
Use to marry her, and the verdict must
be for the defendant.
IF man knowing promises to mar
ry an unchaSte woman and afterwards
breaks his promise without justitica-
ton, the woman can recover such
damages as she may show she has SuS-
tanned by reason Of the breach; but in
fixing the a,u)unt of such damage
the law will not permit an unchaSte
woman to stand upon the same foot
ing as a virtuOus woman; and even
though the man knows OF
the unchaste character of the
woman he may, nevertheless,
prove her character of IN
chastity for the purpose of reducing
the amount OF damages. But an un-
chaste woman who enters into con-
tract of marriage with man is under
the same obligations to live proper
life after the promise is made as a
Virtuous woman. And if previously
unchaste after promise made to marry
her commits acts of unchasity or pro-
stitutes her person to any man other
than the one to whom she is engaged,
such unchaste conduct on her part
absolutely discharges and releases the
man from his promise to marry her,
unless he condones the act with full
knowledge of it.
AS the promise of the plaintiff
is the consideration for the
promise of the defendant, both must
be proved in order to support the &C
tion; and each promise may be eStab-
lished by the same species Of proof;
and the conduct and department as
we'll as the language Of the parties to-
ward each other may furnish satisfac-
tory evidence of the fact that mu
tual promise of marriage has been
made between them, that is, prom
Use of marriage by one and CORE
spending promise OF marriage by the
other
The Jury are further instru"te
that if they find for the plaintiff. in
determining what sum of money
would reasonably indemnify and COM
pensate a breach of the defendants
contract with her, the jury may con-
slider the disappointment OF her reas-
enable expectations and inquire what
she has lost by her disappointment,
and for that purpose consider, among
other things, what would be the
money value or worldly advantage
separate from considerations of senti-
ment and affection of marriage
which would give her home and the
advantage of such a domestic estab-
lishment as would be suitable to her
as the wife Of person Of the defend
ants estate and station in life.
The jury ought also to consider
whether her affections were, in fact,
implicit ted, and whether she had be-
come attached to the defendant, and
if such was the fact the wound and in
jury TO her affections would be an
additional element in the compensa-
tiOn of her damage; and also to con-
slider whatever modification or dis
Uress of mind she suffered upon max
ing the discovery that the defendant
had married another, and had placed it
beyond his power to carry out the
promise of marriage made with her, if
you find that any such promise was,
in fact, made.