Reed

Action for breach of promise of marriage. The defendant -moved for a new trial upon several grounds.

I. Evidence was admitted at the trial showing that after *96 the date of the alleged promise, plaintiff announced to several persons, in the absence of the defendant, that she was engaged to marry the defendant. There was no error in the admission of this testimony. Conceding that an express promise of marriage had been made by the defendant, it was essential to show that the promise had been accepted by the plaintiff. Considering the peculiar nature of the contract sought to be established, the frequent and public announcement of the engagement by the plaintiff would be among the best evidences of her acceptance of the offer of the defendant. This testimony would not tend to prove the promise by defendant; but it is admissible to prove the equally essential fact — the assent of the plaintiff: Wetmore v. Mell, 1 Ohio St. 26 , 59 Am. Dec. 607 ; Peppinger v. Low, 6 N. J. L. (1 Halst.) 384. This evidence was offered' generally, and is excepted to as being irrelevant and immaterial. Since it was relevant to a material issue in the case it was properly admitted.

2. It is not error…