The North Carolinian

A case of breach of promise of a rather novel character, was brought up for trial in the N. York Circuit Court on Tuesday last, the parties to which were Willis Cutler vs. Dr. Joel S. Oatman and wife.

It appeared in evidence that Dr. Oatman's wife, who was formerly the widow Coles, had received and acknowledged Cutler to be an accepted suitor, and although no positive promise was proven, it was fairly established that the fair widow had talked of getting married to him, and had even allowed him to put his arm around her waist and kiss her, only objecting to this familiarity by saying "ain't you ashamed to act so before folks," to which the gallant suitor would reply, "Why Harriet, you know you are mine!"

Whilst this intimacy was going on, the father of the widow died, leaving her $50,000, when Dr. Oatman stepped in, courted and married her, and Cutler was non-suited in the court of Hymen.

On the part of the defence it was contended that the acquaintance between the plaintiff and the widow was commenced by a ruse on his part, in calling upon her under pretence of hiring a house which belonged to the lady's father. That it was continued under the idea that he was a decent, quiet, orderly citizen, and that the lady cut his acquaintance when she found out that he was a coarse, vulgar fellow; a gambler, a sot; and had no kind of pretension to the hand and person of the beautiful widow and her fortune.

That at the time when it was pretended that Mrs Coles had encouraged his addresses, and suffered his kisses, that he was in the practice of courting other women, one of whom he has since married. Several witnesses were examined who bore out by their testimony all those allegations.

The amount of damages laid is $10,000. The evidence fully proved that the plaintiff had been engaged to be married to several other females at the same time he claims to have been engaged to the widow Coles, while it also showed that Dr Oatman had been intimate with her for several years previous to the death of her father, and her accession to a large share of his fortune.

Judge Kent, in charging the jury, remarked that a "contract to marry may be inferred from the conduct of the parties. But it must be an express promise to marry, and must be mutual. A mere intention to marry--proof of strong affection on one or both sides, will not answer. Unlike other promises again, this promise may be invalidated by the acts of one of the parties--by proof of deception or concealment by the other party--of bad character or unfitness on the part of the party claiming a fulfilment of the promise."--The case was given to the jury, and they rendered a verdict in the course of a few minutes for the defendants.