Rensselaer Union, Volume 10, Number 32, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 April 1878 — Breach of Promise. [ARTICLE]

Breach of Promise.

According to the London News, the latest case in England of breach of promise of marriage, that of Heap against Morris, does not add much glory to a sort of action which, if a bill now pending in the House of Commons becomes a law, is doomed soon to disappear. In this affair the ordinary relations of the parties were reversed; it was the man who sued tho woman for her breach of contract. There could be no sort of doubt as to the fact of the contract. An agreement was signed by the parties whereby the defendant agreed to become the lawful wife of the plaintiff on or about the lstof January, 1875. In default the defendant was to pay a third share of the property which might be left to her under the will of her parents. She was to pay more than this if she did not espouse her business-like wooer. She was to pay him SIOO per annum at the end of 1875, S2OO at the end of 1876, S4OO in 1877, and so on, in a sort of martingale, always doubling till the lady died, or married, or perhaps became bankrupt. In the tenth year this sum would be over $50,000 a year. It is not very easy to see how the impassioned lover, whose surname was Heap, and whose Christian name for aught we know may have been Uriah, induced Miss Marris to enter into this singular bond. The parties had known each other for a long time. Mr. Heap first made the acquaintance of Miss Marris when he was Second Master at Caistor Grammar School, in 1857 or 1858. The father of Miss Marris was a solicitor practicing in the neighborhood. In 1862 the Head Master of the school died, and the plaintiff hoped to obtain his place. He failed, ana it seems the father of Miss Marris opposed and prevented the appointment. Ten years after this the singular contract was signed which we have described, and which was perhaps suggested to Mr. Heap as a schoolmaster by his recollection of the arithmetical problem about the nails in a horse’s shoe. For tho defendant it was alleged that the contract was to be invalid in certain circumstances, but the defense was not proved. A private arrangement was made between the parties, and 4he aggrieved Mr. Heap accepted the sum of $5,000 as full compensation to his injured feelings. The result seems curious till we learn, from the statement of tho defendant’s counsel, that his client was willing to pay $5,000 rather than to allow her letters to be produced in court. “Certain arrangements had also beou made as to the future disposal of tho documents.” Mr. Heap thus wins his case and gets his mohey, and Miss Marris recovers her letters. Thus we see how noble an institution is that which permits suits for breach of promise of marriage.