The New York herald., 1877-10-27

same question about marriage contract as thoS
now a. question II was of decided whea
friends his vile that she was bis WIFE II Is not,
however, the law The contract is wanted TO mako the
puted copartnership account Tho whole question
hinges on the question OF the verify OF the copartncr
ship-so In marriage Tho Judge then cited number
oi cases on the subject Of matrimonial intent and
sgtimsing ch,ldren-that OF : comstock, Fenton ".
Reed in the 4.h Of Johnson; Rowes VS. Cank, Clay
tendency on the part OF the courts was 10 sustain
legitimacy The legitimacy OF tho children has always
contrast In O'Gara vs.. .Eissnack, in WHOA one Of
tho parties living together was married. Il was held
that the marriage was not consumnated Consent not
cohabisation. makes matrimony the law on
this subjecI In Tennessee marriage without
license was held TO be void; but in the oslsDraled
promised girl in writing that he would marry
her tho courts held, much to his astonish ment that
be married. a. ths letter formed 4 CONTRACT os
marriage In her testimony the plaintiff says she con-
sonted 10 become Hsssachsr's vile when she saw she
her wedding ring. but for you 80 a.cldo n mes
giyc wedding rings 20 their mistresses. de says hs
never spoke Of marriage 70 her: Facts DO not he II
such, then you must nnd verde for the paintiiI
You have Also heard that he introduced the pain.ia
his wife 70 Mr.. Herbert ~ was voluntary state
nent on his part and has TO be weighed by YOU. On
the 10Th OF November she commenced suit against
Mr. Strakosch In the name ot Mary y. Gurney, bat
later in 1874 she renewed II in her married name.
This has been denied oy Mr. Crane. II there was
marriage between them no release accorded 70 nim
evidence Of Mr. Rnz'ng ghaussn. Of Jersey CITY When
OF Mr.. Hassschers friends In London called her
Hasslscher's mistress she came back here TO vndi.
her rights She said that she would torment tho
defendant. and she certainly has succeeded IN
ing so II was . question Tor them to
determine whether mon. gavc wedding rings to mis-
,resses; circumstances never lie In conclusion be
said, hat although the question OF legitimacy should
have entered the case. n was tor the jury to
wcigh and consider tho innuonce OF their verdict on
the future OF all the parties ff4
vxRDicr OF TIE JukL
At the close JudGosH charge some roQucgt1
made charge and exceptions taken 70 portions
Of the charge as given. after which the jury retired
After about . halt hours absence the jury
turned, and. on being asked II they had agreed
upon a verdict, the foreman said they had. Then
profound silence In the court room, and when the
foreman announced verdict In favor OF the plaintiff,
Andng that the parties were married some time in
november, 1873, buzz OF general satisfaction fol-
lowed Mrs HassIscher WAS leaning her elbow the
table supporting hor head, and did not move nor
speak until time after the giving OF the verdict
There was gleam Of JOY In her lace but there
tho same imm0ble expression ~ throughout the
trial Mr. Hassachor olt the court room At the con-
cluson OF the Judges charge and Was not seen
Accompanied BY . lady friend Mrs Hasslacher quietly
withdrew from the scene Of the ria taking her chill
dren with her The crowd rapidly passed out, and
th us ended the Hassacher trial.