Radio Digest (June 1932-Mar 1933)

20 Mutual Law Violation Voids Action f" BREACH ./ PROMISE By GLEASON L. ARCHER, LL.D. Dean of Suffolk Law School, Boston A BREACH of promise suit is at best an ugly affair. We could not expect it to be otherwise if we remember that it is invariably preceded by happenings calculated to arouse the most deadly of hostility between the parties. A man who will trifle with the affections of a woman will not hesitate to set up any defense that the law will allow in seeking to escape financial responsibility in the# matter. In ordinary cases* where a lover proves false the girl may well consider that she is fortunate to have discovered his true character before making the fatal mistake of marrying him. Even though she may have a right to sue him for damages, the notoriety and embarrassment incident to such a suit would ordinarily prevent her from asserting her legal rights. It is only in cases where grievous wrongs have been perpetrated that a woman becomes desperate enough, unless she is the "gold digger" type, to bring suit for breach of promise at all. Usually it is the unmarried mother, fighting for the rights of her child who figures in the role of plaintiff in suits of this nature. So, as I said before, a breach, of promise suit is at best an ugly affair. Some phases of breach of promise cases are too sordid for discussion in a radio broadcast, but we cannot well overlook a very common defense that is set up in such cases — illegality of the agreement. When Is the Agreement Illegal AN ENGAGEMENT of marriage should be one of the highest and noblest experiences of life. There should be nothing mean nor sordid about it. The man's offer and the woman's acceptance should be free from ignoble considerations. For this reason, therefore, the law frowns upon any so-called engagement entered into as the inducement for surrender of chastity on the part of the woman. No such engagement will be enforceable at law. Some very unfortunate and deplorable cases have come before the courts, where the evidence has been so clear, in establishing the illegality of the contract of engagement, that no damages could be awarded to the woman in the case. Addie Was Unwise ADDIE WOOD was twenty years of age at the time of the alleged engagement to Walter Saxon. It appeared in evidence that Saxon began to pay attentions to the girl more than a year before the promise of marriage. It appeared also that his intentions were unworthy. Unable to accomplish his purpose in any other way he promised the girl that if she would yield to his improper solicitations he would marry her in the Fall of that year, it then being early summer of 1889. He also agreed that if any evil befell her from thus yielding he would immediately marry her. About the middle of July Miss Wood notified Saxon that an immediate marriage was necessary, whereupon he refused to fulfill his agreement. The distressed and unhappy girl consulted an older woman and the latter advised an immediate action for breach of promise. The suit was brought, but it dragged along in the courts for more than three years before it was finally decided. After all of the shame and disgrace incident to the affair, the girl was unable to recover damages because the consideration for the defendant's promise was illegal. The case was Saxon v. Wood, 4 Ind. App. 242 ; 30 N. E. 797. C^UPPOSE the woman has rekJ pented of her evil ways and accepted a proposal of marriage from a man unfamiliar with her shady past , . . and suppose the man finds her out. Can he break the engagement and not be liable for breach of promise? Read the case of Abbie Foster in this scries of true life stories broadcast by Dean Archer of Suffolk Law School, Boston, over an NBC network, and published in monthly installments exclusively in Radio Digest. IT MUST not be supposed however that the man in the case last discussed could escape responsibility for the care and support of his child. The law would hold him to that extent, but so far as the young woman was concerned the ordinary rules as to illegal contracts would apply. According to well established principles of law neither party to an illegal contract can acquire any rights against the other. The law simply refuses to have anything to do with an illegal contract, leaving the parties where they have placed themselves. If, however, a bona fide engagement of marriage is followed by a betrayal of the woman who had promised in good faith to marry the man, the immoral relation will not defeat the woman's right to maintain an action for breach of promise. If the original engagement is valid that is all that the courts will consider in fixing the rights of the woman. See Haus v. Moeller, 107 Mo. 471; 18 S. W. 884. Character of Plaintiff THE character of the woman often becomes of great importance in breach of promise suits. It is obvious that any man who engages himself to a woman whom he has a right to suppose is a virtuous and proper person should have a right to rescind his contract if he discovers that his fiancee is a woman of loose morals. If we remember that a man has a right to divorce his wife for immoral conduct with other men, we will at once understand why the law absolves an engaged man from obligation to marry a woman who proves false to her pledges to him. The defendant, after a brief courtship, became engaged to marry the plaintiff, supposing her to be a chaste and virtuous young woman. For a time the defendant was as happy as the ordinary young lover, but he soon began to experience uneasiness concerning the undue friendliness for the girl on the part of a certain married man in the neighborhood. His suspicions aroused, the defendant resolved to investigate the situation and thus to clear the plaintiff of unjustifiable suspicions or to confirm his fears. As it transpired, however, he soon discovered unmistakable evidence in hotel registers and otherwise of an unlawful intimacy between the plaintiff and the married man. Too upset at first to know what course to pursue he finally went to the girl's home resolved to break the engagement. Pale faced and shaken with emotion he confronted her with evidence of her own misdeeds. Frightened, but brazen in her guilt, the plaintiff denied criminal misconduct although she was obliged to confess certain compromising circumstances. The defendant refused to be hoodwinked and insisted upon breaking the engagement. The plaintiff brought suit for breach of promise of marriage. The defendant demonstrated to the court that his suspicions were amply justified. The court declared that if the jury were satisfied that the plaintiff was in fact a loose and immodest woman and that the defendant broke his engagement for that reason then they would be justified in absolving the defendant from liability. The case was Espy v. Jones, 37 Ala. 379. Past Misconduct of Woman THERE are those who claim that neither man nor woman is under obligation to confess past misdeeds to a prospective wife or husband. They advance specious arguments to the effect that a man has a right to live his own life as he pleases and that what he may have done in the past is of no importance at present. This argument applies equally to the woman. Then too there is an ancient adage that all is fair in love or war, which some people interpret as meaning that a person is under no obligation to confess anything that might defeat one's chances to win a promise of marriage from the object of adoration. But the law takes no such lenient view of the matter. For a woman to conceal past misconduct, especially involving sexual immorality, will entitle the man to break the engagement, provided he does so immediately upon learning of the facts.