Martinsburg Gazette And Public Advertiser

From the facts as afforded in the following account, we are disposed to concur with the jury, and think that from all that appears, the conduct of Mr. Mann if not unmanly, was at least ungentlemanly. But there is one thing that has always puzzled our editorial capacity—why is it that similar conduct on the part of the female does not meet with similar reprehension in society? Admitting that the defenceless situation of the lady renders her more liable to this kind of imposition; nevertheless we have seen instances where the gentleman, confiding in the promise of some faithless fair one; has purchased his "silver, his Liverpool, his brass and iron," bed and bedding; and having obtained his marching orders notwithstanding; has received instead of sympathy, the pleasure of being laughed at as a "great booby." We would not have the lady's father to pay in damages for her fickleness, but we should certainly inveigh against that rule as a bad one, which does not cut both ways.

Day vs. Mann—This action brought on a Breach of promise of Marriage was tried on Tuesday 24th ult. in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts at Boston. The facts were briefly these: "The plaintiff, Miss Day, is a very amiable young lady, about 23 years of age, and daughter of the late Judge Day, of Wrentham, formerly a member of the House of Representatives, and afterwards of the Senate of this State.— The defendant, Mr. Howard Mann, is a respectable young man, about 25 years of age, an only son of the late Mr Jason Mann, a very industrious and thriving farmer, also of Wrentham. In the spring of 1822, or thereabouts. the defendant frequently visited the house of Mrs. Jerusha Day, the mother of the plaintiff -he seemed to pay his addresses chiefly to the plaintiff, and she received his attentions; and, indeed their friendship for each other was fast ripening into that affection which usually leads to a matrimonial alliance, when hearing several reports unfavorable to his character. she signified to him her wish to break off the connexion. Some time in August 1824, the defendant requested two of his friends to intercede for him, and desire of the plaintiff a renewal of their intercourse; but before they had an opportunity of conversing with her upon the subject. she learnt that the stories circulated his disadvantage "ere false and groundless, and thereupon wrote him a letter requesting an interview. He answered it, and immediately visited her at her brother's house in Shrewsbury; from thence took her to Worcester, and engaged to marry her. Early in the ensuing September, he called at the house of the plaintiff's mother, informed her of the reconciliation which had taken place between them, requested and obtained her consent to the marriage; and on the 6th of October. the plaintiff returned home. and, assisted by her mother and sisters, made preparations for celebrating the nuptials; purchased her wedding garments, ornaments. &c- bought her silver and Liverpool brass and iron ware--spoke for her China, and engaged some cabinet, furniture- and in fact laid out the greater portion of a legacy of $500 left her by her father. to obtain the various articles necessary for house keeping, Thus every thing went on, and the last Sunday in December was fixed upon as the day for publishing the banns; but not being able to collect all her money, which she had loaned in small sums to the neighboring farmers, she could not complete her purchase so soon as she could have wished, and therefore caused the publication to be postponed for a week or two. In the mean time, the defendant constantly asserted that his attachment was sincere-took her to his house where with his mother and sisters she spent a week or more as his intended bride-friends and relations were invited to hold themselves in readiness to attend the wedding; as it was generally reported and believed in the town that they were to be married; when the defendant suddenly broke off the connexion, and in the beginning of February was published, and soon after allied to another. Two or three weeks previous, however, the defendant called on the plaintiff's mother, and told her that he had some doubts about marrying her daughter. She expressed great surprise and asked him why he had not informed. the plaintiff before. He replied by acknowledging that he had done wrong not in so doing and craved her forgiveness. The Jury brought in a verdict of $550 for the plaintiff. Let all bachelors take warning by this lesson.