The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-05-28

the principles OF law, and having determined the
facts they would render verdict according to the
evidence regardless Of the consequences. The
court tnen proceeded az length 10 direct the atten-
ton Of the jury to the marriage law OF the State OF
New York, and adverting to its extreme laxity
observed that notwithstanding its condition IN
that respect when 1t did not establish the presump-
ton that she was his wife, the man stood IN no
peril Nv wna.eyer yer r1 Judge Van Brunt then pointed
authorities wherein the law was fully set forth,
otter which ne dwelt upon the evidence as It had
been presented BY the witnesses, and called at
tention to the Inconsistencies and contradictions
with which, In some instances, IL was surrounded.
He referred particularly to the testimony In ref
erence 20 the alleged agreement Of marriage be.
tween the plaintiff and the defendant at the
house Of MIS- Beems. on the l4th OF June, 1854.
ana charged tnat II the jury tound that the defend
ant intended to convey to the planttr the idea
that from the time he made the agreements she
was TO be his wife, and conveyed that idea
in appropriate terms, no matter what the inten-
lions OF the defendant were q marriage was con-
sna sce Ba y law 81 wen as to s
agreement took place, and ifit did not no evidence
which had been brought forward in regard to repu.
tati0n-common or general reputatOn-could
make marriage between the parties. In order
to md that marriage took place the jury must
occurrence in the third story room on the night OF
the 14tn OF June, 1864. II they found that the
rage vas Is Described 6y the plaintiff
sensations were In regard to man and MISTRESS
they tplantln and defendant) were husband and
dissolve the contract. But II, on the other hand,
the testimony OF Brlnckley were believed. that the
nectioH was meretricious, they must declare that
no such ceremony bound the parties together.
This was the real question to be determined. II
they FOUND that there was marriage, II they
found that 1t should be secret, the plaintiff was
not bound to continue connection any longer. IT.
in TACT, the jury found from the evidence that there
was marriage, his refusal to acknowledge her
constituted abandonment in the eye OF the law.
the course Of q trial he found q Wit.
ness sailing under false c0ors 1t was certainly
his duty as It was his pleasure to point out the
false plumage which he suspected, and II in this
case such witness appeared that man was Gran
mer. He testified to certain admissions made to
Judge then dwelt severely on the TACT that when
the detective Creamery was asked the question
with the paintir hts demeanor was such as to
lead to the false impression that the question was
quite unexpected, although he subsequently, testi.
ned that ne knew that question was 10 be asked
HIM. The Court repeated the law bearing on the
case, exnlaining tnat cohabitation and reputation
did not make marriage unless there was a
contract or an agreement between the parties. In
fine Judge Van Brunt called the attention OF the
First, was the plaintiff at the time OF the COM
mencement OF TINS action o resident OF the State
OF New York; II SO she had right to maintain
this action. Second, did the plaintln become or
was she the wife OF the defendant, as stated In the
complaint Third did the defendant abandon the
that Is his wie Ii the jury found the plaintiff was
the wife OF deiendant then they must IND that the
defendant mad abandoned her. The fourth issue
the state OF Tennessee in the same cause for
which this action was commenced. There was no
doubt IL was q similar cause, but the fact Of
her being resident Of the state entitled her TO
bring the action. Judge Van Brunr concluded by
impressing on thejury the Importance OF the case
They saw the magnitude OF 1t. and he felt assured
he would not be disappointed In having his con-
science aided in this nomentous trial and that
the verdict would be o vtndication OF the right.
Mr. Anthem excepted 10 some parts or the
charge. particularly in reference to the comments
made on the evidence OF Detective Cranmer.
Judge Van Brunt stated that he lett entirely to
the Jury TO derive their own Impressions nom the
The jury retired shortly before six O'Clock; but
scarcely had they left the court room when Mrs.
Brinckley fairly gave way, and. bursting into
hitherto borne so courageously had at length over
come her. She was however, consoled by many
friends and soon lett the court
In about three-quarters OF an hour the jury re.
turned to court for further instructions.
Tae foreman s saS ~ case the Jly found that
parties, what course would they pursue.
Judge Van Brunt said the question was whether
one to the other the idea that an agreement was
entered into. Unless the jury found tnere was
fendant. But II the jury we're undecided on that
point they must then take into consideration the
na anScr az shs sIe Ss as Ms az
to the transactions alleged, for the purpose OF aid
ing them in coming to conclusion In word II
the jury we're able to determine one way or the
other as to whether contract existed then the
subsequent even Is were immaterial; but II they
could not determine that point then the subse-
quent circumstances and the subsequent conduct
OF the parties must aid them in coming to u con-
clusion as to whether there was or was not q con-
tract Y
~ t't THE VERDICT. fN \
At nine O'Clock the jury, VINO were locked, sent
word to Judge Van Brunt asking II they might
have some refreshments. The Judge sent word
back. by all means, and the Court officers took
them to Sweeney's Hotel. where they had supper
at their own expense the case not being criminal
penses. ~ ~
the jury returned to Court at quarter to eleven
with verdict for the plaintiT on all the issues
They found that she was the defendants vile, and
That ne refused to provide Tor her. rs stated IN the
complaint. Ht@4 H@|aMHN4 Hf4t9
the plaintiff clasped her hands, exclaimed s4ohn
deghtedly, and leaned on the bosom OF . lady
friend. n rre "A ssH 4.4 ~ t@.t#..--, =
MIR. Anthem required that the jury be polled. and
then asked Tor q stay OF sixty days to prepare q
case and exceptions. g tfc 81 t16f
f01 STAY GRANTED. et rfas
The Judge said he would consider the application
AMI grant stay mean lille, but ne thought the
request unreasonable.
Mr.. Brown uos paintif1-Provided further all
Judge-i have nothing to do with that.
MIR. Brown thanked the jury on behalf OF the
plaintiff ,
set aside on the minutes, which was refused.
a8 THANKING THE JURY.
When the verdict was given there were about
twelve people IN Court, OF wnOm four were lady
friends OF the plalntin, who tried TO calm Mrs.
Br,nckley's emotion. She smiled on the jury, how
Court adjourned she stood at the entrance OF the
jury box and shook the hand Of every juryman
and thanked him with emotion.