Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1872-10-23
CTRIOUS CASE.
Gnn~r That n NOT RAAnfffnf.

TODAY. in the Court in General Term. the
case of William Waltermre against LIZZIE
Snow was taken up, Mr.. Mills Dean for plaintiff,
and Messrs. Riddle and j. J. johnson tor de-
PENDANT The facts in this case ara as follows:
Plaintiff (who is a New Yorker of some promi-
neDce in business crcles). on the oath of October
last entered suit against defendant for money
loaned 81 ,l50), and the pleas of non indebted
ness, &C., having been filed, issue was Joined
and the c1se came on for trial at the May term
Of the Circuit Court, when the plaintiff, as the
substance: That he made the Acquaintance of
the defendant about four years agO, and became
intimate with her; when in Washington was
often at her house, and occupied q room with
her; Lad sustained the same relations with her
at New York, Cape May, and Long Branch;
paid her bills, and always upon leaving her
gave her liberal sums of money; the reiatie US
between them were broken up two years ago;
that about three years ago she asked him to
advance her 500 70 pay note OF that amount
at bank, which was for a bill due job Angus
for To pairs on a house in nth street; that be did
50, and that he advanced II as a loan and she
received il such, and that at subseQ aent tim,
be advanced TO her as loans, aud not on account
OF their relations, $3.50 more, making in all the
sum Of 81 ,1J0 that he called on defendant about
two years ago and showed her a statement OF
The amount sne owe him. that she told him 81 g
owed him 81 l5n. and asked him to Ca |
about II O'Clock, when she would pay him. H.
called AZ l. O'Clock, when she refused to pay
him, and h came abusive, when he left.
The depO1eIt was sworn, and testified TIA
she had been the mistress of the plaintiff, W. O,
when in Washington, brought his baggage o
her house and remained with her; that he usu-
ally came every Saturday night and remain, Il
with her until the TUESDAY or Wednesday fol-
loV irg; when he did not come TO Washington =
would telegraph TO her, and she would 20 on and
with him. and usually as his wife;
lad received numerous letters and tel
egrams, which she produced in court.
That he paid her bills monopolized a her time
and attention, and was not unusually liberal D
her in money. That he often went away with
ont giving her anything. He paid none of IL q
bills for her house, sent her paper to repaper it,
and some carpets. That having a note TO pay
for bill due Deb Angus, she asked him for the
money, and he gave her check for il. That he
gave It to her and she received it, like all other
moneys she received from him. 1t was not a
loan-she never intended to repay it, and never
promised to. That at another time her sent her
word to get her wardrobe ready to join him
at watering place, and that she went, and
occupied rooms just vacated by his wife. He
hal sent her money from New York yall she
ever received from him was on account of their
relations, and none Of Z as loan to be repaid
her house and wanted TO remain with her, and
then she refused TO receive him; that he then
said he would make her trouble, and mentioned
that she owed him five hundred dollars, and he
came by appointment the next day and had a
talk with Der, and asked her to repay the FIVE
hundred dollars; did not claim anything more
that she refused 70 repay il, and insisted that it
was given to her as her money, and not as
loan, which was the last interview between the
parties. And the defence rested.
The court, after instructing the Jury as to the
effect OF the act of Congress permitting parties
TO testify on their own behalf, said in effect
that when, as in the present case, the only evil
derce was that OF the parties respectively, who
contradicte1 each other, it was question for
the jury TO determine TO whom credit was due.
II the jury believed that the money sued for or
any part OF Ii, was advanced by the plaintiff to
the defendant 10 pay notes or bills OF the char
acter mentioned, and so as to leave the parties
free from the immortality OF their relation, then
for such sums advanced the plaintiff was enti-
tied TO a verdict.
The jury found verdict for plaintiff for 500
and costs, and motion tor a new trial was
entered. for the following reasons: list. Because
the evidence plainly shows that the money the
plaintiff seeks 10 recover from defendant was
given for an immoral and wicked purpose. ri.
because sail verdict is against the law. 81.
Because the verdict is against the evidence. Ith.
Because the jury did not understand the charge
Of the court. This motion was aryued on the
27tI Of May, and overruled, and defendant APP
pea ed and filed her prepared case. The case
now Is on the appeal from the decision of the
court overruling the motion for a new trial.
The appellants (Snows) points are, 1st
Where one OF two parties, beth equally credible,
makes an assertion which is denied BY the other,
the plaintiffs case, under such circumstances,
is not proved. (Wm. BroughrOn Eiecta A.
Smart, Legal News; 81. decree in chancery
cannot be pronounced, OH the testimony of
single witness, unaccOmpaned by corrOb0rating
circumsta noes, against positive denial by the
defendant. (HUghes vs. Blake, VIII, 453.
Union Bans of Georgetown vs.. Geary, Pet.
ILL.,, and. 3D. From the relation of thesrarties
the suit cannot be sustained.
The appellee (Waltemire) alleges that the
proposed case" leaves out material points in
his testimony, and makes the following points:
list. The credtbtlity OF witness is a question for
the jury.-(Greenleafs Evidence, sec. 1851 I'll.
Though a decree in chancery cannot be pro-
nounced on the Testimony of q single witness,
unaccompanied by corrOborating circumstances
against the positive denial by the defendant it
Is dlfsrent in courts OF law.-(ii SharwsWOOd's
Blaclt Stone, p. 49, M
The judgment below was affirmed. An appeal
was taken to the Supreme Court of the United
States.