The Republican journal., 1871-04-27


reason of his apparent estrangemcnt. 1t is
suggested by the counsel for the defendant thai
no promise OF marriage was spoken of in The
letter and that this is an important omission
That is for you to consider with the other testi
monY in the case.
Then, there is another letter from plaintiff tt
defendant which has been identified by the
plaintiff. That letter will lie before you 1t il
suggested, on the part Of the plaintiff that thai
letter, upon its face, expressed the outgushlns
OF her sorrow, disappointment and intense
feelings and the anxiety that she might see hin
once more; that he might apologize or explain
or that if she had done anything wrong sh'
might have the same opportunity, and that they
might smooth the way between them ana tht
engagement be finally consummated by mar
riage.
She has plv.ed. rs she claims, by her Ia
| Their, mother and sister, that her intensity. o
grief is abundantly proved that it Is no 1lctiol
Of hers; the tears; the grief; the sleeples'
nights: the mental wanderings. as she claims
testify to the intensity of suffering, and SHE
saws the letter is the result of this suffering.
On the other hand. the defendants counse
gives different explanation; that this lettel
was part of the scheme, concoctcd by thi:
plaintiff to entrap this young man aud compe
him, against his will, either to marry her OF t(
pay her il large sum of money, and that in the
letter itself there is the strongest internal evi
dence Of that fact, covert statement that there
made known TO HIM in the wagon; and yor
will look at the letter. 1t suggests near the
close that she must sec him. the longer she
waits the worse it will be for her; that when
she sees him and tells him all, he would not
blame her for being in Il hurry TO see him.
You have the testimony of the defendant ;
witnesses touching an alleged interview be
tween the plaintiff and defendant at the house
of his father, in the night time, in his room
What TRANSFERRED in that room: You may find
whether the plaintiff was present, as testified tC
by Mrs. Sibley and her son, or whether as she
says, she was not there. II is hardly within the
bounds Of human nature, to have charity enough
to believe, that either party honestly mistakes
in regard to that matter. If she was there, UNI
der those circumstances, must she not remcm
Der it to this day: And, if he was there under
those circumstances. must he not remember it!
How black and criminal must be the heart that
would come into court and testify that she was
there, OF not there. contrary to the truth.
Mr.. Sibley testified that he heard 4 noise OF
some one passing over his room into his sons
room one night. Mrs Sibley testified that she
heard it, and the next day put some additional
fastening over the door OF paint'ti's room, and
that on a subsequent night, she heard Il noise,
that aroused her from her siumbers; that she
went up stairs and listened, heard whispering
in his ROOM looked in and saw two persons
there, and the next morning she enquired OF
the plaintiff concerning the Disc, and if she
knew. that she, Mrs. Sibley. was up there.
The plaintiff testified that Mrs. Sblcy did call
her attention to the fact of the noise; that she
told her that she did not, but that Mrs. Sihcy
never enqured of her, whether She, the plaintiff
knew that Mrs. Sbley was up stairs 1T that time.
What did transpire i'll that room: If YOU
come to the conclusion that she was not there,
then that alleged circumstance can have no
weight i'll your minds except. perhaps, to dis
credit the witness who testified that She was
there. If you find that She was there. what in
ference are you to draw iii regard to IT, touch
ing her crcdibility and this contract of marri-
age: Was she there for the purpose of setting
a trap for him. TO lay the foundation for charge
to be made against him. that she was iii trouble.
and that he must marry her, or was she there
by their mutual consent and satisfaction. and in
consequence of his having promised her before
hand. repeatedly, that he would marry her
was she there tor this fraudulent purpose. or in
consequence of her love and affection for him,
and his promise, that whatever might bctide, she
should be his.
1t has been suggested by the counsel for the
plaintiff and it is good law, that where a party
promises woman to marry her and thereby
wins her affections, and obtains control, not
only over her affections. but over her person,
and She yields TO his suggestions in con>c
quence, solely OF the power he has acquired over
her, by reason of his promise, that IN that case.
if a woman yields and is thereby scduccd, that
is matter, not in justification of the man, not
in condemnation Of the woman. but matter to
be shown in ag@rayation of damages, that the
plaintiff is entitled to recover, if those facts are
found to exist
She also had his picture; did he direct her to
take it, or did she take it without comforting
with him: And if he did suggest to her to
take it, would you regard that as any very
strong indication of an intention of marriage:
SO, gentlemen, you will take the testimony
give it your most careful. impartial and intel
t1,o III -nln
arrive at the truth, TO ascertain whether or not
this defendant did promise to marry this plain
tiff. If you find he did not promise to marry her.
neither by express words. nor by circumstances
sufficient to prove an implied promise, your
verdict will be for the defendant. But, if, on
the contrary, you find that he did promise to
marry her, your verdict should be for the plain
tiff,
And, she is entitled 10 recover, if at all. the
damages she has sustained i'll consequence of
the injury to her feelings. her mental suffering.
her loss of his society and the peeuniary assist
ance and support she might reasonably have
anticipated to receive ill consequence of the
alliance, and also, if there has been any false
and unjust imputation cast upon her character,
by his denial upon oath, of any agreement to
marry her. and any intention to marry her, or
any dcfaming of her character, by the false tes-
timony which he has introduced, then that
may be shown in aggravaton of damages: and
YOU may also take into consideration the blight,
if any, this disappointment may have had on
her future prospects OF marriage. You cannot
exceed in your verdict. the sum of $4,000.
After being out two hours, the jury returned
q verdict of $4,000 for the plaintiff.
FRIDAY, April u.
The following DIVORCES were decreed by the
Court
l.
Divorce dccreed. Liblt. to have custody of
minor child.
Mary L. Richards, libl't vs. Maybcrry Rich
ards. Divorce decrccd.
Emeine Brown. hblt. V. Jonathan NJ
Brown. Divorce decreed.
Isabella White Flanders, libl't. vs.. David p
Flanders. Divorce Gecreetl
Charles A. Sabans libl't. vs.. Louisa j. SabanS
Divorce decrecd.
Mary j. Wentworth, ibl't. Is. Freeman.
Wentworth. Divorce dccrccd.
The Grand jury came in, andreturnedtenbil bills
OF Indictment rs follows: Fraud. ,; compound
larceny. /; house Of ill-famc, l. common seller.
2; tipping shop, l; single sale. . assault and
battery. .; and were then discharged finally.
On Monday, the 9th, Judge Dickerson left
for Wiscasset. to hold the term in that
county, while Judge Cutting came here to sit
during the remainder of the term. This ar
ransement was made in consequence of the eX-
ID. VI. L..
X. H., in which Judge d. is Director.
TUESDAY, April %.
Melissa r. Brown. libl't. vs.. VIM. J. Brown.
Divorce decreed. Libl't. to have custody of
minor child.
David G. Austin, liblt. vs.. Mary Z. Austin.
Divorce decreed.
Annie Dckey, libl't VS.. Dickey. Divorce
decreed.
Julia f. Mckinney, librt. VS.. Thomas Nc
Kinney. Divorce dccreed.
John Il. Robertson, VS.. Josiah n. White. Ac.
ton OF trespass on lands in Waldo. Verdict for
defendant.
Francis Howe vs.. Irwin Caldcrwood. Suit for
damages resulting from alleged neglect in serv-
ing writ of attachment. Verdict for defendant
Hubbard for plaintiff. Mcclellan and Boyle fol
defence.
The breach of promise ease, Abby f. Perkins
of Belfast, vs. Francis Farnham, of Ctstinc is
assigned for Thursday,
The suits against individual subscribers tC
railroad stock are marked for trial. and will be
taken up towards the close of the term
Singular Accident.
NORTH ADAMS, MASS, April 23-Or
Friday afternoon q serious accident oc-
CURED at the first enlargement of tho
l1oosac Tunnel, killing four men ant
i