Leibbrandt

I concur in the foregoing opinion and judgment. Such evidence is never admissible to prove the contract to marry. But, after competent proof of the contract, I think the evidence clearly admissible for the limited purpose of showing damage by reason of the humiliation following the breach of contract. A woman whose engagement is known only to herself and recreant lover will not, it may he assumed, suffer for his faithlessness quite so many and so keen pangs as the woman who has made announcement of her engagement to her circle of friends. Therefore, I think the ruling in Reed v. Clark is correct on principle, without supporting authority.

Plaintiff recovered judgment for $4,500 damages f-or breach of promise of marriage. Defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and this appeal is from the judgment and order.

Plaintiff testified fully as to all the facts and circumstances connected with thé alleged contract of marriage. Her counsel then asked her this question: “Did you ever tell anybody about your contemplated marriage with Sorg?” Defendant objected to the question as immaterial, incompetent and ir *688 relevant, and the objection was overruled. The judge at the time of the ruling remarked that the question would be allowed, not for the purpose of proving a promise of marriage, but to show humiliation on the part of plaintiff. The witness then answered that she said to Mrs. Barkley: “Mrs. Barkley, 1 am going to tell you the truth. I am going to get married, and I am going to marry a rich man, and will not have to work so hard any more.” The witness further said that she thought she told Mrs. Barkley that the man’s name was Sorg. The plaintiff’s attorney afterward called Mrs. Barkley, who testified that she had a conversation with plaintiff in Santa Cruz about the last of August, 1898, in which…