New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-04-27
THE COURTS.
CFSAR's 100000 SUIT.

ootJSsEL's ARGUMENTS AND THE JUDGES CHAkuh'
The case of August Caesar against Piliip
Krieger for 100000 the plantih charging the deie-
ant with adultery with his wife. attracted great crown
to hear the arguments Of counsel Yesterday the
having been closed the previous night. Judge Law
renee In Supreme Court, Circuit tried the suit OarcS
W Brooke presented great length the argument Tor
rho defense that the husbands mmoralties Jshed the
wife in leaving him. that the departure from MN was
not induced by the defendant and that this was suit
for backmail.
John p ONeill At nearly the same length pressed on
the Jury the gravity Of breaking up the ties pet"eoh
husband and wife and running the wifes character ana
the husbands happiness, and claimed that the quit Oh
the defendant and the wife were fully established
Judge Lawrence charged the jury briefly. The action
he said was brought by the plaintiff TO recover Tlooooo
for his damages the deprivation OF the aid, comfort
and society Of his wife, Tae action known as one LOT
criminal conversation. TO maintain II the h"soaho
should show that the wife was entced away rom nome
without jusabe cause aud that tnt loss Ma1 I
stoned by the voluntary act OF the wife upon )ustnpe
dcten The law was well settled that II The husband
consented to his wife's adultery ne c"uiu 10, III
loose and improper conduct that would result IN hi1g
ton OF damages. II bc had the power TO lterpOs 1n
prevent the act and did not all he cOud recover was te
strict pecunia!y damage sustained. He then bilehy
recited the tacts of the cise-tie rst ~
Kreger and Mrs., CRsar in August iS1J.tlc ~, tSsH
Intimacy the flight of The wife on Aug 3. 1873 lcr re-
turn On Aug IL, and her second departure on Aas 90
o. the " fe were caused by the arts or uren MS OF ne
defendant Aner she left her home she was fre'!cnuy
i'm company with defendant, AID ~ now ID MS eur
ploynrnt These facts were before them i0r tIe Rii
i'm But there were circumstances III "hicn wy
pIann was contra ctcd ny tine doctor who trenu nm,
Nv his wife, and by the defendant WHO was mo'
obi ycd to remain with Eer husband under al tS.
stances nor would action be sustained d@nlS' IN
VINO, finding that wife for just reasons h,i ~,
her husband, harbOred and sheltered her. One uci.hs5
here was that plaintiffs conduct anu MS
with bad were such that the wilc coul ~, ~
main with him, n the Jurors believed this thcy nn't
find for the defendant As general rule damages sholid
be rioy com cLstOTy, bui there was claS o. cbsC
where great moral wrong had been done; then dam
ages might he punitivennd exemplary. |. they ivnn
tins gross and garing, tncv mig SlN SUN ui
axes In giving damages they might tihC III % d,tv'
thai tie husband employed his WE a an atCii tiiU III
bis salnOn and might recover Tor tue OS' OF t!nSj
services. They might take into account III mIugalOL
his improper conduct, II any vas proved Os .'cA h
l1ayr IL spcj a case ShOud come mo court VIII ctah
hands one false to his vows must br supposed not
tn nave suffered greyOusly one spD.ie@s II the
Jurors believed wife, tna wOdit 80 very ir u ice
those damages. , .. IL
The Jurors. not having agreed in two hours were IL
rcctcd 10 b1ng IN q sealed verdict this morning.