Year: 1873

1rclDcT'S breuch OF promise suit


Walking In the Park.


An interesting suit Tor breach or promise Of mar
riage, in which the paintir claims $50, 900 dam
ages for her alleged wrongs, came up In the City
Court special term. before Judge Nelson. Coun-
sellor Ready appeared for the plaintiff. Miss Mary
Trelber, and on his motion Mr.. Frederick 4.
1reiper was appointed guardian ad Item for the
purpose OF prosecuting the suit. Both parties
are respectfully connected, and reside In the
Eastern District OF Brooklyn. Mr.. Henry Grof, the
defendant, is engaged in business with hts father,
and as alleged, entered into contract OF marriage
with the plantin IN the month OF July last, which
contract he now refuses to fulfil. The summons
and complaint were served on him by deputy
snern lew days ago, aud the young man Is now
entanged in tue meshes OF the law. The plaintiff
Is little over twenty years OF age and seeks
marriage with the defendant.


The complaint in this case set forth that the oner
OF marriage was made during visit OF the couple
to Prospect Park last july and that the oner was
then and there accepted. Alter this the defendant
continued his attention to Miss Treiber, visited
her at her house gave her money to buy an engage
ment ring and "sparkng'' ring ana took her out
to various places OF public resort. Furthermore,
the engagement was made known to different
parties.


The defence is q general denial.


Bertha Stcinfeld's Breach of Promise


Sultan Important Decision.


Some time since Miss Bertha Steinfeld brought
suit against Herman Levi for alleged breach OF
promise OF marriage, and was awarded o verdict
OF $7,s65. motion was subsequently made for q
new trial. Yesterday Judge Nelson rendered
decision granting new trial, and in his opinion
considered the main points in this somewhat re-
markable case.


In the course Of the opinion the Judge said =
"The pleader In drawing the complaint seems to
have been aware that in counting upon contract
q consideration for the promise should be alleged,
but not that general averment OF mutual promises
was requisite and suficienC, or that the particular
consideration stated must be merltorlous. He
proceeds therefore without that restraint which
knowledge or general principles would have i'm
posed, and charges the defendant with having
made proposal and promise OF marriage in con-
Slderatl0n OF Illicit intercourse. The entire
sderation Tor the engagement Is thus stated in the
complaint 1t is hardly necessary to state tnat
contract thus grossly immoral would not support the
action Il Story CON- sections 457, 49o 54l; Pars.,
Con-, 5tn ed, p. 6S) This objection ralsed re-
peated and urged IN the trial. was overrued and
exceptions taken. The learned presiding Judge
applied the rule that where contract Is founded
two considerations, one OF which is merely void,
but not vicious, and the other good, the contract
is binding to the extent OF the good consideration.
He ruled that II, in fact, mutually concurrent
promises to marry were part OF the considera-
ton, the plaintin could recover, 1t does not
seem TO have occurred to him that such a rule
would tend 20 legalize contracts for prostitution,
or that the principle view is never applied to an
argument tainted with immortality. Courts OF JUS
tce Will not aid The Illicit or corrupt arrangement,
or sift out one part Of 1t to save the other part.
Where one part OF the consideration Is valid and
the other nlatuna in Sc The failure Is entire. The





After referring to the failure OF an amendment
made TO the complaint to disturb the immoral
character OF the arrangement, Judge Nelson pro-
ceeded to discuss the other objection recovery,
which was as to the breach oil the contract by the
defendant. The Judge said THE parties did not
meet nor hold any correspondence for some months
prior to the action. There was no request or re-
usal to marry by either party. The defendant
absent from the city portion OF the time,
but while here could have been put in default by
request or notice, could have been found for that
purpose as readily rs he was when the summons
was personally served. think the instructions
given to the jury in connection with this question
may have been misapprehended by them. A new
trial must be granted. But that win be fruitess
to the plaintin unless the complaint can be re-
formed and the Objectionable matter expunged or
properly placed. II the mutual promises
prior to and separate from the immoral
features OF the transaction can be averred
these features might be retained and the
complaint be good. Bat as this pleading
now stands it would not appear by the Judgment
roll that the plaintiff was entitled TO recover;
such record would be unfit to go upon the flies OF
the Court From the finding OF the jury 1t appears
that the plaintiff has been most cruelty abused,
and with her child abandoned by the defendant.
In their view with which, from the reading OF the
testimony, concur, the defendant deserved con-
demnation and punishment. therefore interfere
with the verdict with pain and reluctance