The Republican journal., 1871-04-27

about done, when he came in and stopped and
talked two or three minutes. He asked me il
had seen his gold studs. He took them from
his box on the table and showed them to me
when l was going to bed, he had retired
before me, his door was open. AS
got TO the top of the stairs, he said, wish you
would get something more and put down to the
foot of the bed l went into a closet, and took
quilt and put on to the bed and went directly
out. have heard his statement indicating that
| was pregnant by him; there IS no truth in
the statement.
The testimony here closed.
Mr.. JeWett moved to increase the damages
alleged in the writ from $4,000 to $4,000, because
of the contumely Of defendant, which is ar
element in aggravation of damages.
The Court over ruled the motion, because
the plaintiffs counsel must have anticipated {
defence, and should have provided for different
possible defences; and because there is nc
evidence that def't it worth any property.
Mr. Abbott then made the argument for the
defence and Mr.. Jewett for plaintiff, the two
occupying the afternoon. On Friday morning
Judge Dickerson delivered the following
CHARGE.
GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY: The case vol
have been considering for the past two days i.
one of acknowledged interest and importan &c
10 the parties Immediately concerned and also
TO the public, and / doubt not You have given
and will continue TO give it to the end, that
careful, impartial and intelligent consideration
that it demands at you hands.
A contract of marriage may be expressed or
implied and the proof to establish it may be
either direct and positive, or indirect and Cir
cumstahtial. In this case the plaintiff relies
mainly upon an express promise of marri-
age; and she has detailed to You with great
minuteness and particularly the circumstances
under which this promise was made; and she
relies not only upon the promise as originally
made, but claims that that promise was subse-
quently renewed and repeated, not only in
direct language by defendant, but also in out
ward acts which tended to corrobOrate the
original promise. She has given YOU the time
and place and the circumstances under which
She says, he approached her. when she was
busily employed in her household affairs, in his
fathers house, some members of the family be-
ing absent; and she has told you what he said,
her reply to his suggestions, her doubts as to his
sincerity, his repeated declarations of his
sincerity, and his intentions towards her, and
tnereciprocal feelings with which she expressed
herself ut that time and also the seal OF al
fectonwhic was mutually exchanged between
them on that occasion. She has also told you
how and under what circumstances this engage
ment was renewed or continued, what CONVEX
sations they had at several times with regard to
the proposed marriage, the places where they at
different times expected to reside, the pro-
ects he had in view, such as building a house
at one time, at another repairing the old home
stead of his grandfather for their reception, at
another time purchasing another farm. where
they were expecting to live, and, down as late as
Oct. 1863, in the same year, she testified that he
told her, that he intended TO get married the
coming winter. She has also testified to you
with regard to the suspicious which she, on
certain occasions, had entertained with regard
TO his relations to another, and how persistently
and unqualificdly, he denied all foundation for
such supposed partlallty. and he apOloglZed to
her for having shown another Young lady the
attention whichs she claimed as belonging to her:
that this familiarity was carried to that extent,
that he insisted upon her seating herself in his
lap; that she did so, and that while they were
there engaged in conversation, connected with
their proposed arrangements for marriage, one
of the family entered the room and she, out Of
a sense of propriety, desired to sit in chair by
herself and that he demonstrated and desired
her to remain, and said to her that he did not
care if the family did know it. And in conse-
quence of his suggestion she did remain in that
situation until some member of the family
came in and engaged in conversation with her
and him. She has told you how soon it was, a
month after the alleged engagement, that she
communicated knowledge Of it to her brothers
wife, Mrs. Barlow, and she has also told YOU
the preparations she herself had made, and
that were made in the family in anticipation of
This event, the weaving of blankets, the max
of beds and bedding; the purchase by her pa
rents of Il set of silver forks and spoons, de-
signed as her marriage present.
With what feelings of disappointment and
mental suffering she learned that he was not in
tending to fulfil his engagement; with what eff
forts She pursued him personally and by letter
10 induce linn 10 return to her and explain to
her if his mind had changed, or at any rate to
come and see her once more, that she might
have conversation with him and learn the
cause of his arrangement, you have heard.
Most Of this testimony is derived from her
own statements alone. She does not pretend
that aside from the interview that she had with
him in his lap, in the presence Of a member of
the family, that any person was present and
heard any conversation that took place between
her and him in regard to the engagement. And
il may be proper for you to distinguish in con-
sidcrlng this testimony, that which depends al
together upon her own oath, and that which
depends partly upon that and upon the testimO-
ny Of others. or wholly upon the testimony of
others.
A contract, to be binding upon the parties,
must be reciprocal. trequires the assent of both
minds, the plaintiffs as well as the defendants,
and if the defendant is liable at all ii is in con-
sequence of his own express promise to her, Or
Of his declarations and acts toward and con-
corning her, from which Il promise of marriage
may be fairly inferred.
1t does not follow that the defendant prom
IL
her, because she supposed that he intended to
marry her. She may have supposed that he in
tended to marry her, and she may or may not
have had sufficient foundation for that SUPPOSE
lion. Her friends may have supposed that she
was engaged to him, and the preparations for
marriage may have been made with that under
standing, and he may have been entirely igno-
rant Of any such intention on his part.
The defendant says that this statement of the
witnesses.
late TO the contract of marriage, are not true,
and he generally denies unqualitiedly all know-
edge of any promise and all intention on his
part to marry her. And although his attention
was not called particularly to all the circum-
Stances testified to by her showing as she claims
Il promise on his part, yet he does deny that he
ever made any promise on any occasion, or that
he ever intended at any time to marry her.
The burden Of proof is upon the plaintiff to
show by a preponderance Of testimony that the
defendant did promise to marry her. Hence, it
becomes necessary for you to look into the
other testimony of the case, and to consider
who is Corroborated on the one side and the
other, and where, finally, the balance of testl-
mony is, whether in favor Of the plaintiff or
otherwise.
What attention did he show her? Did he
walk out; did he ride out with her? take her to
parties, or other places of amusement, or social
or public worship. Did he carry her home,
and if so under what circumstances; in conse-
Quence of his attachment 10 her, or for other
considerations: Consider the length of time
that elapsed from the time when it is said that
the engagement was made to the time of its
termination, and see what he is proved to have
done in respect to her; his language; his de-
pertinent toward her, in her presence, and
concerning her in her absence.
The father of defendant denies ever having
had any knowledge or suspicion of any engage
ment until Mr.. Barlow notified him. He had
observed one act of partially, spending with
her some two or three hours on the Sabbath
lust before this conversation took place, and the
defendant testified that on that occasion he
went at the instance and suggestion of the
plaintiff and remained in consequence of her
invitation and request and by previous arrange
ment. Then there is the testimony Of the
mother of the defendant and of one of the
brothers, denying all knowledge of any partjc-
ular intimacy between them indicating an en-
gagement or an intention of marriage.
Ii may be said that it would hardly be likely
that a Young man under these circumstances,
paving his addresses to girl employed in the
house, about the domestic affairs, would be
likely to communicate it to father or mother,
or be very demonstrative in their presence, es-
pecaly if he had reason to believe that the pa
rents would be hostile to any such arrange
mcnt He has also testified, that he occasion
ally rode out with another young lady and that
he subsequently married her. Who is corrobo
rated, the plaintiff or the defendant?
In Judging of testimony, it is important to
consider the minuteness of detail with which
witnesses testify. 1t is much less difficult tC
,h/ md Of han onf