| OCR Text |
Show BREACH OF PROMIS SUITS. <br><br> The question has recently been discussed in England whether it would not be wise to do away with the right of action for breach of promise of marriage. At the last session of parliament a motion was carried in the House of Commons declaring that the action ought to be abolished, except when actual pecuniary loss has been incurred by reason of the promise, in which case the recoverable damage should not exceed the pecuniary loss. This sentiment is based on the allegation that the right of maintaining an action for breach of promise is often most scandalously abused. A recent case of this kind was cited in the House of Commons. A woman sued a clergy man for breach of promise. She was 35 and he was 65 years old. He denied that he ever promised, intended, or wanted to marry her. She procured a witness to corroborate her story. The clergyman was ??? in 8750 damages. It was afterwards proved that the plaintiff was an abandoned woman, who had been convicted of theft, and had attempted to blackmail two other parsons by threatening actions for breach of promise. In another case, a scoundrel brought an action of breach of promise against a lady for the sole purpose of extorting money from her. And he succeeded, for she preferred to pay the villain $5,000 to having her letters read in court and published in the newspapers. There is no doubt that this right of action is subject to grave abuses, and that it has given rise to many scandalous cases. But, on the other hand, it is equally unquestionable that, when properly used, it is a means of getting justice. It is a remedy that has been, and will be, generally sought by women, who are certainly entitled to adequate means of legal redress when they have been wronged and injured by the arbitrary breaking of marriage engagements. The law governing such actions may need amendment so as to prevent the evils which have flourished under it; but the total abolition of the right would cause more mischief than it would prevent. An important reform in the law was made in 1869. Prior to that time neither of the principals in a breach of promise case could testify. It will be remembered that the injured Mrs. Bardell was not allowed to tell in evidence of "the revolting heartlessness and systematic villainy" of "the ruthless destroyer of the domestic oasis in the desert of Goswell street," nor did the law permit the heartless [unreadable line] Mr. Pickwick to explain on the witness stand the meaning of his "chops and tomato sauce" and "warming-pan." The act of 1869 opened the witness box to both plaintiff and defendant in a breach of promise case, with the proviso, however, that a verdict shall not be recovered unless the testimony of the plaintiff is corroborated by some other material evidence. - N. Y. Times |
