Year: 1879

DOLLARS FROM FORGETFUL suiIoh~


[DY TELEGRAPH TO THE HERALD.


BALTIMORE. Feb. IL. 1879.


In the Superior Court to-day large crowd assem-
bled to listen to the proceedings in breach OF
promise SUIT in which Miss Ann O'Neill was the
plaintiff and Philip Brogan the defendant The plaintiff
is Of that age which in single ladies is pronounced
doubtful. and may be any where between tnirty-ive
and fifty She neatly dressed and her head. which
is streaked with gray hair. adorned with
jaunty little hat trimmed profusely with red flowers
The defendent is solid looking old celt with broad
good naured and intelligent face. and who by his
witty TO the intcrrogaories OF counsel kept
the Court and audience convulsed with laughter
during his entire examination The plaintiff claimed
that Brogan had promised to marry her. which
promise he had failed fulfil. and that she wanted
salve to her wounded feeling the modest little
sum Of $4,000.


NO RECOLLECTION OF THE PROMISE.


The defendant, Brogan was the first witness calIe>
by the counsel for the plaintiff He testified that
he became acquainted with plaintiff by visiting the
bakery Of julius Ahrcns. where she is sales
woman; witness had been hackman and had his
stables on Howard Conway street; he was about
sixty five. might be seventy had known plaintiff
three four years. but could not tell her age; he
thought she looked to be forty years Of age.
but supposed she could tell her own
age best; he had recollection of ever
pan Witness wdows and is SO ons
since he did any counting that he really had forgot
ten how 1t was done; he had never intended to
marry plaintiff or any one else; before God he did
not know anything about going to church to get
married, and at the time it Is alleged that he
. drunk for two weeks. In speaking Of the disposal
of his property since the suit instituted witness
been in consultation with Sister Mary Ann about
giving up the world by selling his property and
tring to st. Agnes where he could pass the rest of


Miss ONeil the plaintiff was called to testify but
Mr. objected that as an interested party she
the objection and she retired.


TIGHT MARIIED.
Father Sartori. formerly Of st. Josephs Church.
Brogan and Miss O'Neil came to him. and Brogan
said he wanted to bc married in a hurry and at
license, but he could not produce it;
there other why his conscience
would not allow him to marry them. he told them
to come the next day. and told Brogan to try and
come sober; Brogan did not stagger. but was half
by separate doors, but Brogan insisted Oh going
arn-inarm with plaintiff; another reason why
he did not marry them was because they did
not have the necessary ecclesiastical dispensation
Brogan appeared to witness to be monomaniac on
the subject Of marriage and spoke during this visit
partially understood what he was doing.
Witness thought that II Brogan had been
married; based this opinion on the fact that he did
not return when he got sober; even il he had the
proper license and dispensaton witness would not
have married man in his condition. unless the case
urgent; but witness was satisfied there
urgency IN this case.


PASTORS TESTIMONY


Rev. P. l.. Chapelle, d. d. next called for the
plaintiff Witness is pastor of St. Josephs Church.
and had known both parties to the suit since
September. 1871; they were his parishioners;
he had been spoken to by both. but In
his capacity Of pastor; would not like to
tell the conversation but II tho Court decided that
he should reveal it he would do So the parties had
called him last August and since the suit was
menced.


The Court-H the parties went to witness their
spiritual adviser he need not tell.


Witness said he felt delicacy in detailing in pub
lie court room private conversation which he as
pastor had with his parishioners; he knew Brogan
well: he would 30 occasional frolics, and
witness had him several times
spree; had him drunk that he
entirely irresponsible. His conversation such
occasions silly, and he could only walk by
drunkard's Providence. and then with shambling
gait. Even for some days after his sprees witness
did not regard him as responsible, because while
his sprees he drank very deeply.


DIDN'T ALLOW CoCRrING.


julius Ahrens proprietor of the bakery. called for
plaintiff testified that he had known Miss ONeill for
the past ten years, and she had been in
his employ during most of the time; to his
knowledge she had received three four
visits from Brogan Brogan came there like other
customers, he bought a few cakes and then talked
with the lady witness did not allow any counting in
his shop, because it interfercd with his business
The case was then given to the jury, who retired.
aud the Court adjourned until tomorrow.