The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1874-06-01
THE VERDICT.

THE VERDICT.
The Plaintiff Declared to be the Wife of Mr.
Brinkley.
The Brinkley trial was ended W ednesday
night, the 27th by verdict for the plain
tiff, whom the jury declared to be resi-
dent of New York and wife. The case
has attracted great interest at this as well
as at former trials, and the courtroom has
been uniformly crowded, and was SO on
the last night After summing up by
counsel and the Judges charge the case
went to the jury at a quarter to six o'clock.
A disagreement was expected, but after
coming back for instructions and getting
them in very elaborate shape, half an hour
later the jury finally returned with the YER
dict as above given. The proceedings fol-
low:
The case was summed up Tuesday by
Mr.. Anthem for Mr.. Brinkley and by Mr..
Beach for the plaintiff. Judge Van Brunt
in charging the jury said:
If the Jury found in favor of the defend
ant, the plaintiff would be sent from the
!, linfamy from which she will meyer recover.
On the other hand, if they found in favor
Of the plaintiff, the effects upon him were
of scarcely less Importance. He was young,
rich, and had brilliant prospects, and by
/, their verdict they would tie him to wom-
an who could never be his wife, who would
darken his career and hang about him like
d a milestone. There had been a good deal
&c said about the laxity of the marriage law
of the State of New York, 1t had been
criticised on the part of counsel and in the
adjudications of various cases, that it was
pity that in this State contract of so in
-, dissoluble a nature should be allowed with
out greater formalities than a contract for
\ the purchase of goods. Although it was
= the custom and had became the habit to
> attribute laxity to the laws in relation to
the marriage contract IN this State, 1T seem
ed to him that the laws of the State OF
York were the only just laws in reference
to that contract. Under the rigid mar
rage laws of Great Britain there were in
\, stances where man and woman lived to
' gether during their whole lives; and then
in consequence of the destruction of thu
proofs of marriage or the lmpOsslblllty OF
proving some requisite formality, their
de whole intercourse was pronounced illegiti
nlaI6 anu lUtlI eli u6CidIGu W w DdS
~ tards. As early as 1900 marriage could b.
~ established by common reputation and co
'rt habitation, yet the books have never reg
W, istered case where the marriage was sus
as, tanned unless the man had held out thu
NJ, nd woman as his wife, and under these cir
m cumstances the man had nobody to blam
IA but himself if his representations yer
false. The presumption of law was in ia
=. vor of legitimacy. He could not refrai
from calling their attention to the case {
Wright against Wright. Under the NAL
riage law of England a minor could nc
~ contract marriage unless by consent {
X parents or guardian. In this case IL
- husband, a minor, married with the col
sent of the guardian, but he did not hal
- pen to be legally a guardian They live
ID together as man and wife. Three weeR
before the wife's death the husband b
~ came of age. They continued of course
y, live as man and wife, and in order to SUI
tain marriage in that case, the Cou
presumed that marriage had taken pla'
after the husband had attained the age
twenty-one. That was carrying the la
of presumptions to ridiculous exter
'S The laws of this State were much bette
~ and were not lax No man stood in al
peril here of being declared married VIII
he was not, who had not by his own &C
established it by cohahitation and comm
=. reputation as man and wife. Judge VI
Brunt then related the history of this ca
before the present trial; his own failure
decide on the former trial, and his resol
pt to call on jury to aid him as to the fac
= He was somewhat old-fashioned and
lieved in iuries. He had never known
Jury to render verdict which was not su
a. stantially in accordance with his own vie
- without tracing it to some cause viii
u should not have influenced them. He
"a examined many cases on this subject, b
81 as it was so late, he should mention
one or two illustrating directly the law
VIEW this subject The first was the case
siIed Fenton vs.. Reid, decided in 1909; that
and been the law from that day to this; al
r,,us as the Legislature had never repealed
fulI or altered it, it might be fairly infer
perch that the people considered that law
1forre most conducive to good morals. Their
ady's woman married after her husband
WSag been lost seven years. but be return
an be thus entirely vitiating her second N
1 per riage. After living a few years, and
,ct Enoch Arden style, recognizing his WI
relations to her second husband, he di
and the wife and second husband lived
years longer together without any furt
per marriage ceremony The court
14s, that from the general reputation
acknowledgement they would I
an sumo a new contract OF marris
- Judge Van Brunt called attention to
other cases where it had !. been
cided that marriage was contract,
that general repute and acknowledged
were proof of the contract Discussing
'A0' of them, he said il presented a remark;
similarity to this case. No objection
made by the relatives so long as they {
posed the relation illicit, but the mon
L it was rumored that it had legality the
liz seemed to have been considered by Il
immoral and improper. In his own c
sion of the case of Wright VS.. Wright
= had with no little reluctance dischai
D the unwilling duty of declaring four chil'