Year: 1877

promises to occupy all the week.


BREACH OF PROMISE DAMAGES.


About one year ago last May, Hulda Trcbra made the
acquantanc OF william Radeens This acquaint-
was made by Hulda going to live in the house Of
a Mr. Cohn. In whose shoe store William clerk.
Within months after they met, she says he prom
iscd marry her. and, under that promise. scduced
her. For this double injury-a failure TO comply with
his promise aud the wrong TO her moral character
she demanded 900 damages. For TINS sum she
brought suit in the Marine Court, which was tried
before Judge McAdam without jury, yesterday. The
plaintiff, in addition to the foregoing iacts stated in
her testimony that the 23d OF December last they
had celebration oil their engagement at the house OF
tie defendant on which OCCASION he presented her
with ring nd called her only true love, I" IN the
presence OF n n mper of witnesses Notwith standing
TINS formality and all that had preceded II, and not
wthstanding that she, relying upon H. had bought the
necessary bedding and household utensils Tor house.
keeping, he "wickedy and without any knowledge on
her part the Both OF January, 1877, did marry one
Miss Kannegeser, with whom he is now living" Tho
defendant III his answer denied 'each and every ac-
CATION In plaintiffs complaint contained" On her
crossexaminaton she varied somewhat from the CON-
plant IN her statement oil the cate when the defendant
wronged her The celebration. she said was sort ot
double barreied Affair." beng In honor OF his birthday
as well as her enpagementto 10 hm he sealed the en-.
gagement with a rug and she with shirt studs and
sleeve buttons. When she received an invitation TO
the party she understood IL TO be birthday party,
ana 1t was an agreeable surprise to her 10 have u
turned into engagement party She produced had
read by inter prefer number OF letters which sho
testified she had received from the defendant, and all OF
which Dreathed the sentiments OF true affection. Sew
eral of the plaintiffs friends who were present with
her Mt the party corroborated her statements the
defendant putting ring on her nger and calling her
hs love. They also denied that the defendant WAS IN


oxicated at the time. male friend OF the defendant
testified that the latter informed him ho was trying 10
appointed watchman aud II he did ho going


to get married the ides of March, The defendant
denied the engagement the seduction and the promise
OF marriage, and asserted that plann had been ac-
customed to follow him around. Hc said no was drunk
at the party ana know nothing OF giving her his ring
until he missed 1t the next morning The ring was his
the defendant denied under oath tho seduction the
repeated her assertion on that point The Judge
said this made aSquare issue between the veracty of
the partes but each persisted in asserting that
veraclty alone with them The defendant further
testified that he was but three days married when
deputy sheriff took him prisoner IN the present suit.
Several witnesses his part testified that while they
saw HIM Keeping company with plaintiff none OF them
saw any evidence OF an engagement between them.
An effort made on the part OF palntin 10 nave 1t
appear that there TWO broken glasses In tho case
broken IN honor oil the engagement THIS was par
TALLY admitted by witness for the defendant, but he
attributed It TO the quantity lager consumed, and
10 the soemnty Of the ceremony


Judge McAdam said he hld no doubt OF the truth OF


tho plaintiffs story and but for the act that dcend
ant had since got married. that he was so impecu
nous, compelled TO remain IN JAIL he would have
made the verd ct heavy one. Under the circum-
stances he gave verdict for $3.50 In favor OF the
plaintiff