The daily morning journal and courier., 1904-02-16

assaults and batteries"
 These matrimonial contracts are sui eeneris. No grim-Tisaged lawyer draws up formal contract to be executed; no notary pries into the intents and pur- poses of the parties and eertifes the same under his official seal; no go-be- tween Pandarus is present to hold the hands of Trollus and Cresida and sol- enLly pronounce:
 A bargain made; seal it, seal it: I'll be the witness"
 No-in the vine-clad arbor, or behind the protecting screens of parlor walls. in some shady nook, or in the dim moonlight deep down some lonely dell, far sunken from the healthy breath of morn and eve's one star there these engagements are softly whispered and the contract sealed with a kiss.
 For these reasons. while the making of the contract is a question of proof, if need not be proved intotidem verbis, and is often inferred from the actions. language and conduct of the parties, land it is difficult to tell under what circumstances the court would be justi- flied in finding that a promise had been made. Many a young man, not fatally bent on matrimony. would sometimes be surprised to find that his language, intended only as a compliment to some charming damsel, or his conduct meant solely as an act of gallantry, is suffi- cient in the eyes of the law to support proof of a promise to marry.
 A gentleman once concluded that it would be very elegant and very fun ny thing to send to his dulcinea a news paper article entitled Love, the Con- Queror," marking it, and when the fun ny gentleman declined to marry her, she brought suit against him and read the article to the jury, who gave her four thousand dollars damages. The supreme court of Illinois, sustaining the verdict. said: "The article may be regarded as the defendants own letter; it doubtless contained sentiment which more choice than he could compose. It was his appeal for marriage-it fore told in clear and emphatic language his object and intent in his courtship with her. She doubtless placed this con- struction upon it, as she well might do and laid it aside as a rare treasure.''
 In New York case, it was shown on the trial that widower, pious elder of f1fty-three years of age, soon after the death of his wife. visited the plain 1 tiff, a maiden lady of thirty, and talk ing out memorandum book, from which he read, or pretended to read, stated in confidential way, that he had noted down some requests made by his wife four days before her death; that it was something he "could not tell her now" but that she (the maiden lady) would know some day. darkly limiting, so the lady took it, that the de- ceased wife had requested the forlorn widower to Tighten his grief by marry ing the plaintiff. It was proved that after this confidential talk, there were rides and drives together, frequent wis., it's extending till late in the evening, and, to cap the climax the widower told the plaintiff that after the lapse of a year from the death of his wife (the widower's quarantine, 1t seems), he in- Itended to marry. and he then entered Unto minute description of the lady he Ewanted to marry, which description was an exact photograph of the plain 1 tiff. While we cannot but admire the lshrewd diplomacy of this willy widower, Icourting by dark inslnuations and CO., Ivert suggestions. and not committing himself by an open avowal, yet, as the sequel shows, he ran an1uek of the doc Urine of estoppel.
 l The sanctimonious Proteus forgot his Julia and found him another sweet heart, and, knowing that he had be- come somewhat involved in his affair with the plaintiff, he Automatically un- dertook to checkmate the lady. He told her that he did not want her people to think that he was paying her the at- tention of lover so soon after the death of his wife, and, in order to al- Hay that suspicion, he drew up a note, in which the plaintiff was made to say that she regarded his visits as simply evidences of friendship and nothing more'' and got her to sign it. The jury Hound in her favor and the Court of Ap- Ipeals of New York upheld the verdict. l In a Connecticut case the defendant had been heard to remark on his happi- ness when in plaintiffs company and Ihis utter misery unless in her society. The parties had exchanged daguerreo- types, the defendant had taught the plaintiffs nephew to call him uncle, and had told the plaintiffs brother-in-law I that "all the courting was done," little lsuspecting that the plaintiff would take a hand at "courtin'g' m the presence of judge and jury.
 The defendant afterward went on a voyage, and while on the sea he indittd Ieffusive love letters to the plaintiff, tell ling her how constantly he thought of her while awake aud how he dreamed of her while asleep, touchingly aiding: I'sWhile I am tossed to and fro on this
 wide ocean, love thee still.,'
 Yet, notwithstanding all this, the mad lover broke off the engagement.
 The plaintiffs "courting'' was fully as successful as had been that of the de- fendant, for she recovered Judgment for 1,50o.
 In a Vermont case the plaintiff ard defendant were neighbors, and the de- lfendana paid reighborlv visits to the
 plaintiffs family. It was shown that these visits were at first to the erftirs
 family, and that they were gradually narrowed until they were confined tC the plaintiff alone. This fact, together
 with the proof that during the periods