The daily gazette., 1876-12-09


ei you should believe this testimony or
not, we do say if you do believe it, there
is enough in it to justify you in saying
that the promise she spoke of and which
by his answer he admitted, is sufficient to
justify you in giving verdict for the
plain iff-and this assuming it to be
creditable, if there were no other testi-
mony in the case. Such is the evidence
on the part of the plaintiff, some positive
and direct as to the facts themselves, and
the rest circumstantial, but of that kind
which is as valuable as the most direct
testimony can be.
The defendant on his part, in rebuttal
of this positive and pregnant circumstan-
tial testimony offers evidence which in
disputably shows that during all this long
peroid of cOurtship with the plaintiff he
was counting another person; and also
offers further testimony to show that the
plaintiffs mother must have known it,
thereby designing to destroy with you the
valne of her testimony she having de-
| claring that she did not know he was
paying addresses to another. He also
produced witness whose testimony it
| was expected would weigh with this jury
in the assessment of the plaintiffs DANA
ges, if you should think her entitled to
verdict he having sworn that some years
ago, when he was about eighteen years
old he was on the parlor floor with the
plaintiff. Now in regard to the first proof
by the defendant, we have to say to you
| as amatter uf common experience, that
there is nothing more common in the case
of seducers Gf you should believe the de-
| fendant to be one of that odious class)that
| the conducting or carrying on by them
of two or even more 81 mulated courtships
| at the same time. The facts proved by
him with respect to that, are such rs you
may fairly and properly take into consid-
| Grafton; but they are in themselves-give
| them the utmost significance you can
but negative testimony, of much less
value, we are bound to say, to you, in
general than positive testimony, as is
| that offered in part by the plaintiff. With
| respect to the second fact, that sworn to
you by the witness Thomas A. Sharpe
We feel it to be our duty in this case, the
result of which is so important to the
character of the plaintiff that we should
warn you to carefully consider if you be-
lieve it to be true, what weight is to be
| given to it-what 1t amounts to. Young
Sharpe SwearS that six or eight years ago
when according to his statement of his
age at present he was but about eighteen
and when he must have been rather q
small effeIninite boy, for he scarcely ap-
pears to be a man now-whilst the plain
tiff was at his mothers house, he and she
were on the floor of the parlor together;
but he says also that his sister older than
he was in the room at the time, lying
upon the sofa and that neither OF them
| thought there was any harm in what
done.
Now, there are some things to be ta-
ken seriously into your consideration in
passing upon the significance and value
of this testimony. Was it intended by i,
to impute to the plaintiff a want of chas
tity before her seduction? That must
have been its object. If so, what does il
appear to show? In the first place the
witness knows that his sister was lying
in the same room at the same time upon
| sofa. Now as he does not prove that
she was either asleep nor that they were
out of her view, the presumption IS that
she saw whatever took place. Is it like
ly therefore, that anything went on
| which was wrong and this sister remain
silent? Again, the witness could not re-
member in answer to n question from
the court whether it was day or night
| This seems very eXtraordinary-still as
there is a bare possibility that it is tue,
we leave it to you to be dealt with as
sensible men deal with like testimony.
| Now, then, gentlemen, we have called
your attention to the testimony on both
sides-not in detail for that was unne-
! ceSsary, but in the mass-and it remains
| for you to find or not to find, that Il con
| tract of marriage existed between the
parties, and if you find il did not, then
you should render n verdict for the de-
| fendant. But if you believe the testi-
mony of the plaintiffs 's witnesses, and find
that such contract did exist and that he
has refused to carry it out by marrying
| her, then the plaintiff is entitled to your
verdict, and will be entitled to recover
i some damages rs compensation for the
breach, but such damages must be con-
fined to such expenses as she has been
fZ.~
| nc. But it has been proved beyond n
doubt, in fact is treated as afact admitted
by counsel that the plaintiff became preg
nant during the cOurtship, and on the
| 2Sth of June 1875, was delivered OF n
child, which was alleged in his presence
to be his, and which by his then conduct
and actions, he must be taken to have
admitted, we do not understand il to
he denied that the child was begotten by
the defendant; ifyou believe the plaintiffs
testimony, it is impossible to doubt it..
The case, then, before you, stands as a
case claimed to be one of seduction, as
consequence, it is alleged by the plaintiff
in the conduct of the case before you, of
a promise to marry. If you should so
find, then very important duty is i'm
mediately deVolved upon you-that of
determining the amount of damages you
should award the plaintiff.
In all cases of the kind this is claimed
to be, the measure of damages is to be
| regulated by the circumstances, which
are for the jury to pass upon. Ifyou be-
lieve the testimony of Mrs. Calvert
"that in the latter part of the summer, or
the early part of September, 1874, the de-
fendant admitted in her presence, by
what he said about the plaintiff being at
work." and find that such language i'm
ported that an engagement of marriage
then existed between them, y on are war
ranted in finding the sedu. ton con-
sequence of the engagement, If you choose
SO to do. Again if you should from the
testimony with respect to that occasion
be unsatisfied of the existence of such
engagement, and you should believe the
witness when she speaks of the in teryiew
in March, 1915, and the promise then
! the promise there referred to time prior
to the plaintiffs seduction; In either
case the plaintiff is entitled to further
damage. Now what are they to be? That
is Il question for you alone. Before you
come to d, eide upon it, we think proper