& 7,. 96, or if false repteeentatione are made kyy the woman, or by her friends hi col, lesion vrith her, as to bet cirennistanten and eitnation in life and the atiount of het .fcit. tnne and tnartiagc portion, either of these Will constitute a- pod defenee. 1 Garr', & P.
350, 529; 3 Esp. 236 ; 44 Me. 164 ; 1 Cart & K.: 463 ; 3 Bingh. C. 54 ; Holt, Nisi P. 151 ; 6 La. Ann. 316 ; 18 Ill. 44. But it hag been held not to be A defence that the plain, tiff tit the time Of the engagement Wait tinder an engtigeinent to itiatry another per: glen; unless the priot engagement was ftaucht, lently etniectiled. 1 Eli. B. & E. 796. But see. 1 Pateotie, Contr. 550.
6. If after the engagerneat either party le guilty of gross miscotidnet, inconeistent With the chtttacter Which he of she was fairly presented to poeSeSs, the other petty Will be released,. 4 Esti, 256. If the engageitient is made without any agreement tespecting the Woman's property; and she afterwards disposes of any considerable portion of .it without her intended husband's knowledge and Consent, or if she insists upon having her property settled to her own separate Use, it is said that this will justify him in break, hig Off the engagement. Addison, Conti% 4th ed. 680. Se, if the situatien and poei, don of either of the partiee as reghrds his or her fitness for the marriage relation materially and permanently altered for the worse (whether with or without the fault of such pwrty) after the engagement, this' will release the other phrty. Thus, if one of the parties is attacked by blindness, or by an incurable disease, or auy malady calculated permanently to impair and weaken the ,con stitution, this will dispense with the perform, ance of the contract on the part of' the other party: Addison, Contr. 4th ed. 681 ; Pothier; 'Tr, du Mar. no. 1, 60, .61, 63. Whether it will alit° constitute a defence for. the phrty affiidted, is &question of much difficulty. .In a recent English case, where it appeared that the defendant since the engagement had.
beCodie afilieted With eensUffiption, Whereby he was rendered incapable of marriage with Mit great datiget of hie life, it,ivas held, by eix judges' agathat fiVe, that this oenstitiited no defence ;. though it seemed , to be agreed that it Would haveheen a.goed delenCe for the oth'et party. 1 Ell. B. & E, 746, 765.
rt. The col:Onion OpiniOn that en agreeniaiit & natitty betareen,pertioncs ineafiable of fettl ing a, Valid Margate ie nedeseatily Void, is etroneotte. If the dieitbility pertains only to one of the patties, and the other phity Was ignotaiit of it. itt the tiine of the engagement, it Will cortstitate no defende fcir the fermeri Thus, if a man who alrehdy has a Wife living inakee proMitte of marriage tO another woman who is ignOtant of the foimet rnatl tinge, he will be liable in damages for breach df his prothise, although a perform ance is impossible, 2 Cart. & P. 553 ; 7 O. B. 999 ; 5 Etch. 775 ; 29' Bait. N. Y. a In' tin ketion for breach of promise of Mar tinge, the ceurt Will not intetfete With the diectetion of the jirry As to the anaount of damages, tiniest there hasibeen some obvione ertOr or misconception on their part, or it made apparent that they have been actuated by imprOpet inotiree. 1 C. B. s. 6'60 1 Young* lz d' . Exch. 477; 26 Conn. 398. /Bid if the defendant has undertaken to rest his defence, in whole or in part, on the general bad character or the criminal conduct of the plaintiff, and fails altogether in the proof, the jury may take this into consideration as en hancing the damages. 6 Cow. N. Y. 254; 27 Mo. 600. Where such an action is brought by a woman, it seems that she may prove, in aggravation of damages, that the defendant, under color of a promise of marriage, has seduced her. 8 Barb. N. Y. 323 ; 2 Ind. 402 ; 3 Mass. 73. But see, contra, 2 Penn. St. 80, commented on in 11 id. 316 ; 1 R. I. 493.