New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-11-29
SUPREME COURT-CRcUH-Nov. 2s--Before Mr. Justice
MULLEN
BREACH OF PROMISE CASE-CUBIOUS DEFENSE
YERpIOT ROR TIE PLAnTITR ROR S2OO


MULLEN
BREACH OF PROMISE CASE-CURIOUs DEFENSE
VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF FOR $500.
Cornela Wiggn agt VIM A. Russell
The trial OF this strange case was resumed
Mr Siures was called ard testified that he partner Of
Mi Cushing the commencement OF the former suit
brought by Miss Wggn and that he communicated the nor'
Mrs LaWor A. story testified that both the parties
b. suit and that she had lad conversation with the plain
ia which she admitted receiving money rom MI Irs' at
Troy but did say what the money was given her for
he had several children at Tie time Of his engagement Miss
Wgga; married has nine chdrcn he never tod tae
plaintiff he worth 100000 at that time he was worth
$3.50 nv u' no. n NJ ~ Yin INT six week when he
engagement formed and broke Of when informed OF tho
previous su by Mr. Slure she always denied me former S
ho had interview with her in October ls6 sne asked h
for an explanation lis marriage ho told her She knew the
she said she would not sue him. but asked MN ior
scemca he gave her $50 and promised $50 more on the
surrender Of bis letters and she promised to surrender the
TO MT RIIie hrst ever heard Of the seduction case
wac from Mr. SQnrcs never intended to iuil my engage
was at my request 0Id went there 20 meet her
large number OF The defendants letters to the plaintiff were
offered for identification 10 the defendant and admitted
Witness contnuesl opcned the correspondence Win Miss
IL was then admitted the defendant in the former suit
present in Court and would testify shat there was no
foundation and that he knew nothing that de-
rogatoFy TO Miss Wigen.s character. ..-
the defendant hsd hea matters derogatoy her character
sui charges with having lived life shame also ct
t OF May H. and subsequent letters show that notwith
standing h discovery be still maintained the engagement
These letters contain tie strongest expressions OF affection
December II and p. and others Of other daics .,
The plaintiff then recalled aud testified that she never
authorized MT Cushing 10 bng ihe sun nousn y! nm On. ~
never heard Of IL iii she signed paper 70 e1oheIe he
gentleman charged m that suit she also signed receipt MY
etonerang him nom oil some ugly stories lad gone
this person from annoying her person had visited her In
religious capacity ana had made improper proposals 70 her and
had Threatened 70 folio" her 'ne Isd rH ga
seps % Re Ea p Mr. Csbi1 sd Nj sgire fo- rfr
u4f0 Ehc Ind
to know why he ha sent Der such letter az mat Of May he
acquaintance which bad annoyed him The conversation with
Mis- Story this Miss story had inquired about the cir
eumtanoes and she bad told her that Mr. Russell had offered
her $50 10 give the letters that she had replied she had
would not part win them nhe never hsAee AI. S4snB
reveal the fact Of the first sent never said anything 10
time She called on Mr. Cushing was in find Dir
Squircs office; threatened Mr. Squre with suit for
he had doae Mr. Russell neither at the interview
February a. az any Interview prior 70 October stated
that be unable carry out his engagement after
May ls9 be promised hce times 70 marry her he never
PAID her any money aiier the 18th Of February 1852
To Mr. Marsh-My object IN going TO Mr. Cushings Office
was prevent the defendant from visiting NE annoying me-
never bad any against him. don't know what lie paid
the 900 for except to gn the paper generating him any
before his family the paper was about the size o. t
over oiree sly had ~ little interest in it am not mar
red never knew The defendant IN that suit was
married and had known 50 since was u years od dd not
complain M SQucs Of breach Of professional confidence
understood nom defendants letters that he was continually
promising marry the three times aude 70 are the
times the marriage fixed for Nov 1853 February ls9 May
ls5a after that expected every time he visited me that he
TO Mr. Bss-Nong criminal ever passed between and
Mr. Bliss then reaJ other Of the defendant writ
ten the usual passionate style Of loyelettcr.
the marriage and that Miss Wiggn told him that
Gushing s Squircs hef attorneys.
To Mr. Bhss-I am lawyer
Mr. Gushing recaled-Niss wiggin brought me a letter
frOm Congressman stating that she IN trouble
guesng ne 70 aid her professionally aud did as always
q Did she employ you 70 bring this SUIT A. Most emphai
icay she did from The tip o her boots Of
bonnet she stated that she had been teacher In Sun
dayschOO and that she had been seducd under promise OF
marriage BY tie defendant IN that suit naming times and
when he bad taken her 90 asnatOn houses In carriage
and this the first time that pous men had gone
wrong with her M Gushing told Der he would her ghed and
had discussion sd negotiation with the defendant ana bis
attorneys which resulted IN settlement her giving release
drawn pretty strongly and his paying 600
Mr. S5uires recaled-I have heard the testimony
Of Miss Wiggn and Mr. Cushing l have had interviews
with Miss Wggn 10 regard 70 this suit cant recoee what
said particularly except that the defendant IN that action
had bad criminal intercourse with her and had now abandoned
To MI BHss-she told mo frequently that be- The defendant
had had criminal intercourse with her
Tie complaint In that suit set forth that the plaintiff had but
Ms Wggn recalet-I never made such statements 10 Mr.
on as knaton house with dendnntn that sug
getd tochange boarding house % his sisters and
NJ So ,S 5 9 20 gom1 bSS,e ot had N h
flowers, sd Ike The looks Of the house he con-
him on the street and returned 20 my boarding house
This closed ae testimony aud the case was then summed up
by the counsel for the parties
The Court charged that the fact o. the promise and Of It's
would be The amount Of damages But the defendant IN
todueed two defense settlement at Troy 10 October
and that evidence had been admitted Under this IL
appeared had agreed give the letters receipt OF
$40 but had declined carry out that contract II
no defense The other defense that she previously
lswd woman Now n that Is true she cannot She
cannot ralo hOnest II she be gwd woman
been seinced II Mr. Cnshiugs testimony, cor
robrated Mr. Squfes IS true then she stands charged
by herself n the solemn way with, and publishing her
fchastty question is simply dill she authorize H.
IL she did then she hot charged with T. That cues
for yeu decide the discrepancies OF these witnesses
You heard her story that she wanted protection from tho
Of that defendant In what way that could be done
don know don't know Won don't know Of any way in
law bat 10 is Dot Incredible that IN her ignorance
OF law she may have done Bu, she really did employ the
attorneys oE this purpose then charge you she cannot
cover The amount Of damages Is with you taking nto ac
the she put 90 and the aggraTaon OF her
fcngs that Is the sup}OsOn that yOn ind her 70 nave
But there nn0ther view II the defendant In
and with fun knowye Of her alleged unchestiy, re-
ncWed bis promise tcn she may This new promise
may DO inferred from other circumstances than actual
promise In Of promise made with full knowledge OF inc
unchasy OF the such unchasy does not abs0ye MN
from bis promise Bat may De taken into account by INC
Jury reducing the Of her damages You wiz take
tins ease and bring verdict "a accordance With these pFn
cples
The Jury rendered verdict for the plaintiff for eco
A STOCK TRANSACTION.
Lemuel Tyler agt Wm G. Ford
The plaintiff deposited with the DESCENDANT margin for
gold transaction al that transaction be Loot tC0 and
then entered speculation His story Is this that on
shsres Of Cumberland telling them that Il might 60 down
te but mt re soon and On this they bought promising 70
hold on tor him The defendants he did order them 10 buy
e shares Ok cumberland but promised 70 make he margin