Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1916-05-25
AN OLD CASE RECALLED
Laura JOhnsOn's Father and
Mother the Defendants.
w. ". e. Stickncy Attorney for Man
who sued 10 Recover Money sent
To Woman during Engagement
That Wns Broken.

W. f. e. sticltney. ono Of the attorneys
for the rev e. g. Wilson. whC v-,r
sued for breach of promise by Miss Laura
l.. Johnson was y years ago attorney for
Charles a. Williamson when Mr. William
son sued Miss Johnson's father and moth
cr, Mr. and Mrs Gustavus johnson, for
the recovery of money given by him to
Mrs. Johnson before her marriage 10 MIR
johnson. Vt the time the money was
given to her it was understood by her
and Mr.. Williamson that they were to he
married and that the money was 20 he
used by her to buy a wardrobe and to pay
her expenses from tho West to the East,
where the ceremony was to be performed.
The facts found in the case by the ST.
preme court at the February term in 1901
were as follows:
THE plaintiff and Caroline =. Johnson
entered into marriage engagement at
Minneapolis i'm August ISIS, and she was
to come to Vermont. where the plaintiff
resided to cousummate the engagement
as soon as she coulu get ready 70 come
In view of this arrangement the plaintiff
sent to her from time To time, the several
sums Of money set forth i'm the plaintiffa
specification, for the purpose of buying
her wardrobe. to the extent of s27i, in
preparation for her marriage, il being
left with her to write to him for any
amounts needed for the purpose. She did
write from time to time and stated the
sum required to be 500
I'VE further find that the plaintiff To-,
her have the money sent by him without
any expectation that 1t would be refund
! ed; that he intended, when he sent the
money it should be gift to be used
/ 10y her for the purpose named. to tho
amount of s%15. He also sent her. in addi-
ton to that sum- $50, to be used by her
! in defraying her travelling expenses 70
Vermont for the purpose of being married
| according to their engagement, and she
| knew that the So was sent for that pur-
pose.
She used the sg75 in buying clothes in
preparation for marriage pursuant to the
foregoing arrangement.
She did not como East to he married
as agreed, but in November after broke
| the engagement entered into and subse-
Quently, in 1852 married the defendant
Johnson
| I'VE do not find that she had any good
and sufficient reason for breaking The
engagement
She subsequently offered to send the
clothes she had SO bought to the plaintiff.
| In reply to said offer the plaintiff wrote
her that he hoped she would reconsider
the matter and come TO him in fuldllment
! of their engagement
The plaintiff never requested her to
return the money until this suit was
! brought.
| plaintiff intended in like manner that
| the 81 should be a gift to he used for
her travelling expenses in coming East
as above stated, hut she never so used IL.
When she received and expended the
money so sent to her as above stated she
expected to marry the plaintiff.
There We're no conditions attached "a
| the gift of the money, but It was given
and received on the expectation Of both
parties that they were soon to Re mar
ried. And was given TO he used in he
! manner above stated"
At the trial by court in 1850. Judge Yea
! Zey presiding, a judgment was found for
the defendant. The case was taken ~
supreme court on exceptions, where the
| Judgment was reversed and judgment
for the plaintiff for both sums and in
terest from November go ISIS, was given