Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1872-01-24
PUTNAM NJ. DAVIS.
The breach OF Promise Case.
A verdict of $1,000 D.m,g..

In our issue of last week we gave a brief no.
tice of the commencement of this case in the
Federal Court The entire week was consumed
in hearing the case. Mrs Putnam, the plaintiff,
was on the witness stand a portion Of three
days, and gave the details of her trip from
Washington TO Cincinnati, where she met Mai.
Davis, the plaintiff and where he renewed his
marriage VOWS.
He, after vexatious delays, undertook in a
clandestine manner TO leave her behind, but she
was not be deceived by such tricks, and followed
him TO Tennessee remaining for some time in
the neighborhood of Rodgersville when she
gave him up, having been convinced that he
was n married man, and returned back TO Gin
einnati. The evidence for tho defense was
quite voluminous, but not sufficient to convince
the minds of the jury. The end of the case is
reported in the DAILY CHRONICLE of yesterday
as follows
Yesterday ended the breach of promise case
which has excited some interest in the commu-
nifty during the past woek. The crowd was not
largo to hear the charge of the Judge as il had
been during last week, but still there were quite
number ofthoso present who are curious in
| such matters
Judge Trigg delivered his charge in plain,
| unambguous language, consuming about three
| quarters of an hour in doing it. Neither the
| plaintiff nor the defendant were present, the de-
! PENDANT having not been present at any preceet-
| ing time during the trial. He charged that
| married man may be held responsible for a con-
! tract or promise made to marry. If the de-
| fond0nt nau maze contract with the plantlt,
! believing her to be virtuous and afterwards as
oertained to the contrary, he might then refuse
| TO comply with his contract and rely upon this
in defense of his course. If he knew that she was
not chaste and upright and made a marriage con-
! tract with her, it would be binding upon him.
| Her bad character would be defense to the
action in such case, SO far as he was con-
cerned In the event she knew him to be n
married man and still made contract, she
would not be entitled 10 recover. He instructed
the jury about how to arrive at the damages in
| case they found for the plaintiff and gave the
| usual charge relative to the credit of witnesses.
! weight of testimony, &c. Very little objection
was made to the charge of the Judge, by coun-
| sci on either side-in fact none, we believe.
Some additional points were charged at the in
| stance of counsel, more upon matters overlooked
than upon questions about which there was any
difference.
The jury was composed of the following gem
temen j. G. Parker, w. A. Derton, Elijah
Fitzgerald, James Parks, VIM Galbraith, Geo.
| III. Grove, j. /. Hollingsworth, d. e.. Thorn
burgh, JAS. II. Armstrong, Thos. L. Williams,
Henry Chiles and Lewis Anderson. After re-
firing q little moro than thirty minutes they re-
turned q verdict for the plaintiff for four thou
sand dollars, and were discharged from further
service in the case.
From expressions gathered in passing about
the streets, we infer that the verdict is popular
one,
mouth is SIS he solvent?' The curious are now
anxious to know whether the defendant has Of.
fects available for tho satisfaction Of this judg-
ment. On this important question We hear con
hicting statements. Some say he is good while
others say nothing can DO made on the judg-
ment. The plaintiff has beat the defendant on
the judgment but the defendant may beat or
the execution" a bill in chsncery may BIO the
next expedient, and titles to property may b
unearthed. We understand that Mrs. Putnam
says she cares but little for the amount of thu
Judgment, that vindicstion 10 what che mostl,
desired. She, it is said, proposed to compro
misc the matter once, for $500. The probabili
ty is that the case is not yet ended. An Execu
ton Instanter will probably be the next step il
tho case, and then we shall eco what we shall
sec