Same Streets
← All stories

The Janitor's Failed Replevin of Romance

A Seattle janitor attempted to sue his former flame for the return of bedroom furniture after she refused to marry him, only to be laughed out of court.

The story, cleaned up

A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.

The last act in a comedy in low life was playing yesterday in Judge McBride's court, in the form of a non-suit in the case of Le Roy Darrington against Annie Thomas, by which an assorted lot of household goods was sought to be replevined. The judge ordered that the case was one where the court would leave the parties to settle their own dispute, on the ground that public policy and common decency required it. Le Roy is a good-looking young colored janitor, who lives in this city. He was living with his wife when in the summer of 1892 he met Annie Thomas, a prepossessing yellow girl. Annie suggested that if he were divorced all would be well. Darrington, as he afterward swore on the witness stand, entered into a contract with his charmer that she was to marry him just as soon as she had been divorced six months and could legally marry again. Darrington, to ensure that Annie should have no cause to complain, gave the object of his adoration a set of bedroom furniture, an assortment of bed clothes, dresses, a pair of new gloves and a bonnet. He says that these gifts were not ready gifts, but only a consideration of the marriage contract. When he called upon her and asked her to name the day, she told him that she not only would not but could not marry, for she was the bride of another. He went to a lawyer and commenced a replevin suit to get back the chattels. The jury brought in a verdict for the defendant. As for Darrington, he came down off the stand, and as he stood looking at her, Annie tossed her head and went out in undisputed possession of the furniture.

“Such a case as this has no business in court; it is against public policy and common decency.”

— Printed in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894
Then · 1894132 years apartNow · 2026

This case highlights the absurdity of 19th-century 'breach of promise' lawsuits, which often functioned as tools of gendered control. While the law has evolved, disputes over 'gifted' property following failed relationships remain a common, if less litigious, fixture of social life.

The original page

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-02-02. Library of Congress, Chronicling America.

From readers

No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.

About this story

From
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, FEB 2, 1894, Page 5
Rights
Public domain
Place
47.60323, -122.33028 · placed automatically
The paper in the Library of Congress catalog ↗