The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1870-01-28

| The above, with what we gave last week, is
all OF the testimony we have room for in the
paper, and as the testimony Of the many wit
nesses was mainly corroborative, on their re-
| speetive sides, of what was rendered by the
main witnesses, our readers will be enabled TO
| judge for themselves, from what we have Civ
en-, the merits OF the ease. PeytOn & Sanders
/ for the plaintiff, and Ruggles d Plumb for the
! defendant. put forth their abIest efforts for
| their respective clients, and the arguments ON
both sides Ii is said, were very close logical and
full, covering every important point ELECTED in
| the evidence.
The charge OF Judge Watson to the jury was
full and explicit, and we regret that we are not
able to publish it in full We Will only give
the following section Of it, as connecting link
between the evidence and the judgment:
| TX s.If YOU should find from the evidence
| that there was a contract Of marriage between
| the parties, and that one Of the terms OF said
contract was. that it should not be performed
within year from the making thereof, you
| should regard such contract as void. unless 1t
| was rendered in writing and signed by the de-
| PENDANT. or some other person .hereunto by
| him lawfully authorized"
Before the jury retired, the counsel for the
defense asked of the court that the jury find
specially in certain particulars, which will be
found In the verdict below, and upon these
special findings judgment was rendered for the
defendant, and the hopes Of the plaintiff were
wrecked, as the law says, "When the special
| finding of facts is inconsistent with the gene
raj verdict, the former controls the latter. and
the court may give judgment accordingly"
Vide see. 2s7, General Statutes.
VERDICT.
Anne f. Nichols W.. NJ. NJ. Weaver
We. the Jury in the above entitled cause. do
| lind for the plaintiff and assess her damages 1t
the sum Of t1ree thousand two hundred dol
lars. JOSEPH PEAK,
| Foreman.
And the jury did also at the same time,
turn into court thei. special finding, as follows:
| ]. Was there a marriage contract entered in
to between plaintiff and defendant Yes.
ii. II there ever was a marriage contract en-
tered into between plaintiff and defendant, at
what time was said contract entered into be-
tween them: In the latter part Of the year
/ 1850.
III. II there ever was a marriage contract
| between the plaintiff and defendant, was it
i ever abandoned by the parties? No.
". II the contract was abandoned by the
parties, mt what time WAS it SO abandoned?
1 Rerer.
| V. II the contract was not abandoned by both
parties, W as il abandoned by either? Yes.
| vi. If the contract was abandoned by one of
| the parties, by whom was 1t abandoned, and at
what timer Defendant, February, 1869.
| VII. Was the contract between plaintiff and
| defendant (if any was made) TO be performed
within one year from the date of making the
/ same? No.
| VIII. Was the contract between plaintiff and
| defendant If any was made) to be performed
| at some remote and uncertain time? Yes.
TX. II the contract between plaintiff and de-
| PENDANT was mutually abandoned by the par
| ties, was it ever renewed1 Nerer dbsoIred.
| Y. If the contract, after having been aban-
| doned by the parties, was renewed, at what
| time was it renewed? Same as db0re.
| XI. Was the contract (if any, between the
parties in writing? No.
JOSEPH PEAK,
Foreman.
JUDGMENT.
A motion having been made by his counsel
to render judgment for the defendant, upon the
special findings above given, judgment was
| rendered accordingly in favor of Mr.. Weaver,
the defendant, and against Miss Nichols, the
plaintiff, for the costs, amounting to the sum Of
SIoTGO