Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-07-09

Rulings of Judge wilcox ON the Mo
ton for a New TriaI-The Motion De
MEDIA RemitGer for 500, zoo of th
Verdict Entered, and Judgment Civ
en- for the Balanee-NO Appeal to b,
Taken.
| CHICAGO, July 3.-0n yesterday tn,
motion for a new trial in the case o
Craig VS.. Sprsgue, for breach of promise
was overruled in the Circuit Court o
Dupage county, at Wheaton, Illinois
Judge Wilcox presiding. The attend
ance Of spectators was larger than at any
previous period of the term, but was
marked by the absence of ladies.
On ths opening of the court, at $50 P.
NJ, the Judge took up the several objec-
cions Of the defendants counsel as to
whether the verdict should be quashed,
and dealt with them Seridtim. With
regard to the first, namely, that the YER
dies for 100000 was against law and the
evidence In the case, the Court held that
the verdict was not excessive or illegal.
as such one, on similar evidence, had
been held good by the Superior Court.
With reference to the second, to the
effect that the verdict was against the in
structions Of the Court, the Judge held
that the objection was based upon the
defendant not having been allowed to de-,
pose to his pecuniary condition at the
trial If such had been permitted, it
would give the defendant an opportunity
to defeat the plaintiffs action, and the
terms of the contract, which he was
bound to fulfill, by committing wrong
and then taken advantage of it
To the fourth objection, namely,
requiring the defendant to testify about
the girl whom he had as servant.
the court ruled that it was proper to
crosS>exsmine him, and show that he was
living with and supporting her, and hence,
was able to support wife. Abiding to
the fifth objection why the verdict should
be set aside, which was, in effect, that
the court refused to hear the reply of
DR.. Beck, as to whether the defendants
attorneys knew before he came to the
trial what be had to depose, the court
held that Beck was Sprague's witness
and that the answer, either way, would
not affect the case. Abiding to the sixth
objection, namely, that Of closing the case
before this testimony of Beck had been
concluded, the court said that he could
not compel witness to speak what he
knew. In dealing with the seventh OBJ.
lection, which was based upon the courts
permitting Garrel to testify after the case
had been closed, the judge held that it
was a matter of discretion with the court.
The Court then took up the question
of excessive damages, as it referred di-
rectly to the present suit. He stated
that courts would rarely ever interfere
or set aside verdict Of a jury in an acs
ton of this nature, unless it clearly APP
peared the verdict was the result Of un-
due influence, prejudice or corruption;
that in this case there was no appearance
of any corruption on the part of me jury,
and no claim Of such. There appeared
to be no undue influence, but he was not |
to say there was no prejudice;
the minds of the jury must have been |
by the course the defendants |
counsel assumed for their client, by hold |
ing him up to be a miserable and I'M
principled wretch. The Court concluded |
by asking Mr.. TourtellOtte, of the coun~
sci for Miss Craig, if he would remit.
Mr.. TourtellOtte agreed to remit $4,000
and the Court thereupon entered re-
mitter of the amount, leaving the verdict
to stand SAC, 1000, and overruled the mo-
ton for new trial, entering judgment |
on the verdict for $40, 900.
Upon the entering Of the Judgment
Judge Peters, one Of the defendants at
torneys, said he would not appeal against
the decision