Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

75 Mass. 141

Ray v. Smith

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 15, 1857

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1857-10-15

<p>In an action for breach of promise of marriage, evidence of the acts and conversation of the parties towards each other during a previous intimacy, which was broken off before the mutual promises relied on, is admissible.</p> <p>In an action for breach of promise of marriage, the plaintiff introduced evidence that while the intimacy between the parties was broken off, and before the mutual promises relied on, the defendant expressed satisfaction that she had refused to walk with another man, and said that man could not get her away as long as he had a claim on her.” Held, that the evidence was admissible.</p> <p>In an action for breach of promise of marriage, the plaintiff testified that, after the intimacy between the parties was broken off, she boarded at the same house as the defendant and another woman whom he married; and never knew or heard of any intimacy between them before the marriage. Held, that evidence that during that time the defendant was publicly attentive to his present wife, with the plaintiff’s knowledge, was immaterial, and therefore inadmissible to contradict the plaintiff.</p> <p>The admission, after the close of the defendant’s evidence, of evidence which does not tend to rebut new matter introduced in defence, is within the discretion of the presiding judge, and no ground of exception, even if he does not assign any reason for its admission.</p> <p>Before the St. of 1857, c. 305, took effect, the wife of a party "to a suit was not admissible as a witness.</p>

Decided 1857-10-15

By the Court.

¶11. The testimony of the existence and breaking off of a previous intimacy was rightly admitted. The *144whole relation Of the parties was admissible, including the whole course of the courtship.

¶22. Ricker’s testimony was admissible to prove the feelings of the defendant, and that he was in the receipt of information as to the plaintiff’s acts, and had not abandoned all intention oí prosecuting his addresses.

¶33. The evidence introduced by the defendant, that the plaintiff had the means of knowing his attentions to another woman, related to a time when the intimacy between the plaintiff and the defendant had been entirely broken off, and was immaterial to the issue, and therefore rightly rejected.

¶44. The order of proof was within the discretion of the presiding judge, and not a subject of exception.

¶55. The wife of the defendant was not a competent witness under the statutes in force at the time of the trial. Barber v. Goddard, ante, 71. Exceptions overruled.

/75/mass/141 · .json · Public domain