, 1869-07-04
CRAIG vs.. SPRA0uE.
1udge Wilcox Refuses Defendant g
New Trial
Remittance of $4,000 OF tho Ver-
dict.

Iaacr wilcox, Yesterday afternoon, gave hts &C.
r.s.on ca tie motion fot new tIia II the Of
Cr;:eys. spra&ae, breach Of promise, which was
.rT,sh Counsel o1 FRIDAY, IN the Circuit Court
:: W&ta,on. As on the day preceding. but few
people wcrc IN attendance, but those who were
rrcscns manifested 8 great deal OF interest In the
rrsUlt. Mr. Sprasuc, TIC defendant, was not In
co:;rt- &c.,. ... ,-... ....-
AZ 10 the quesuon Of variance between the
proof and the declaration AZ 70 the time The eGa-
tract WIS iaadr, End the performance Of tie rrre-
GlrEy Of marriage the Court said It vas not ate
ral lie rlatrugd that he had right to allow the
coNnstI for thr rlaln1tr 10 Introduce the witness
<IAsrette TO tesrfs sltr the argument TO Iht jury
Lad Co1nulehtcd, aai cited aulhu1iucs which t1s-
tuned hin IN Hi rslilnS.
AZ 70 compelling The witness Beck 10 answer, he
wuad, he ss.i, as-css higher 1ut II he had the
ca>e tr1ure hun HSAlu- TIE defendant had legal
EGft 70 have tho question ANSWERED. before nc
c.u>td his case
IN regard to The other points male hx 'l,.!cHh-
:.,:'t c'1nsel, be Thought some we're notI"2l. aaa
c..!"g- he was IN daHm a1ot1t they we1r new
points, uai he lsa therefore, I'rrcetelt@ 10
Sal!e Liin III coMlnE 70 & roncluson- He thought
Inirht iH e-1nrs on soTac na.t;:e IA Inc "a
sir1S91rls, Tut stu! q he was In GoE!t about It,
~ would Is,i dts: 1r: tht. verde. hcr:use ri the
Nouhl. The damages Ec c"ns;lGst't excessive,
ssa thcctur ~nl-la .sa.t !!>:utb the vcrin;r,
lH lid Ent tal.!lk thr S;E:.c tuu.t wol!l sI-t4n
:, srrr.!ct fur such az aEaou'l.
TIT counsc. Tor the pla,1!.!ihcn RENTED scE9
rs lEr damages, leaving sl,'Hr', ald The ttnITs
titET!.tI The No liza fnr II LEV trial and uEicscd
:2u' H:'lis1ueslt IN ttt. r-tcrt4..
:. 81! Of exception. {of which there are s.shH Ios
W.T. Y! error 10 thu Supreme Court
Tnr nfrartosy witness, nr. Beck, WAS thea
I-t.eht Iu:u COURT tllat he u.Ig.lt have opur-
tHn4iy to purge himself III GuA,ilut-
TIE Cuuy asked him II II was by ar
r:st@cIacnt with The Defendant o! any nf bis COLE
FL u ANYBODY Interested III tAe defendant, tha1
Lr had declined 10 testify ..-.
lie rLi,!icu tLat II Nns ntt ly arEAaSencn: With
1'sr Cuart then asked HIN why h. had declined
10 ta..iy. .....
lie sa!1 for two reasocs: Oac was that he WAS
tErarea T., GENE N rs'uFt L, Dr. HOOK, ~ Gu.
slnL.!i WLa expected to l.: wiltia. IN order to
fustl1a his tIIooh+} charcter aA a III. sts:sn an
1nan. shat expressly stiPI!a'c that he
re n.aur us tue p.a1niifr: 1h4t he DECLINED TO
sxt: because hc Was ont.lIeI q. tlr couLaei for
Tx i. fcE.,1aslt Tor .-kl.sx lin the ques:irn-
+. cause he cItns:lcreu him7clf boi1nd by hls pra
le--eunal homer not 10 liz cosc y In. L.ll occurred
1,u:i regard 10 tie rtaln:iH.
The taHT: GxfrLs~ed scFrriSs at what Icck h11
f.s,l. because he had been unfer the l'nptss ;ioa
fh4t It WE by arrangement with the defendant
t!.a he (ts:l tad declined to ts:.tfs In order 10
l.o'aN;e IL ul!aSo1asle 1snl'1esasoa asAln:t The
Tle C;ur. a5kc,. III oriu,on ii the la~ycrs who
wrTa. present - 20 whether EteE sloulf now Ii.
IA "! jrcto.s rsos,drsl Eeck would testify u the
r,sc Wiz retletl. liz. others said he had f,een
lGAg enohSh ia rG'stIaetnEl't- AMI il va useless
r, cent tut bis inprs'!mtnt- The Court direct
al that he b.. discharged upon paEihS the cost Of
lis robilnrni,nt Ill me la when amounttn! t1
g. Ire. :Ahl he Eal ,lo tiH1r., and scnt ~
aga TT H. II = ~ trhaa.F 'tt foTwarded TO.
day t4-tuu-rdH. RlI.!4 he Wl 1c Released.
Ncr lhr adjournment n thr t'hi:; Mr. ToN!-
!:,t'.- Ifc"+1e.t - the terks ot1ee AMI ordered
sreGt.uu IL le k.t4t 10 s!.cri1 EistAer Gf tooE
t;.!.tv to IL: IL. led On tic a'fan- fln"5c aEt
S.raeic's N:ocs, 10 MAKE good the sum 0! *:,,tp
m n, Ga:t1 Ssn are ssETA, huna5ed y 1's aoars1
Mt .sr1a:!re wilt have I, pa. the auioant or tho
i!..Gee Is r:ELt to Will u soIl