Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1879-03-31
Oliver agt. Cameron.
TIE BREACH OF raoN:sI CASE


that the plaintiff, having held ont Mr. Oliver
ard herself as man and wife, Is e3topped IN TINS
Suit from denying that she Is the VIE OF Mr.
Oliver. lie insisted that II there was no mar
riage with MIR. oliver there was no MIS- OilVer
In this case. and no Case here. for Miss Mary
Ann McCaffery had no suit against Mr. came
ron. She could not be permitted TO affirm sne
vas rot Mrs: Oliver; there was estoppel os ac'S
The COurt.-If were to pass upon the ialse
pTetenses and frauds In this case tthefe IS ho
jury here now) should make short WORK OF ~
but this case must be tried like 0ther cast
Continuing. the caurt said that, while as o. per-
sons who trusted the plaintiff on the tardt rep
RESERVATIONS Of Mr.. Oliver that she was his wife.
there could be no denial of apparent marriage,
he did not see how that appearance, If 1t was
not reality, affected her capacity to contract
a matrimonial bargain. The court agreed with
what had been said as to exposure of our public
>uch dish is offered he supposed it ought to
disgust any man. he could not decide that an
adulterOuS relation was marriage, or That IL
the parties o fgh a ak
make such contract. The confession of a life
of adultery was poor recommendation for a
woman who wanted to De senator's wife, out
constitutional objection. He would not take
the case from the jury, for he was not afraid
they are going to run away with justice so long
as ne bad the reins In his hands. He overruIed
the motion and adjourned the court.
PROCEEDINGS TODAY.
This morning there was but small attend
ance in comparison with that of the last two
weeks. On the court converting the plaintiff
submitted prayers for instructions to the jury,
in substance as follows:
/. Ii they believe there was a contract of mar
rage and plaintiff requested defendant to con-
summate the contract, they should find for the
plaintiff. Granted.
q In the absence OF express stipulation the
jury may infer, from the conduct of the parties
towards each other, that such stipulation eX-
isted; Overruled, and exception noted.
3. That they may infer PLAINTIFFS acceptance
from her bearing towards defendant. No OBJ
lection was made, and this prayer was granted
4. II they find that they kept up correspond
Mr. that be- so ali RIS oVess who
respond are bound to marry"
The court refused this pray er, remarkfng that
lovers may write to each other without raising
the presumption that they are bound to marry.
Overruled, and exception noted.
s. They may determine from the circum-
stances the promise to marriage. Granted, with
proviSO that they are satisfied from the cir
cumstanceS that the parties meant marriage.
6. That evidence as to the seduction after the
promise Is admissible, as going to show aggra-
walton Of damages. Granted, with proVlso,
''1f they shall not believe she had received full
satisfaction for the seduction
I. That they shall not allow weight or effect
10 eVldence or plalnt1H tending to show that
the claim Of plaintiff was by accord and salts
faction discharged and satisfied before or since
the suit. OverIuled and exception noted.
s. If they believe that subsequent to the griev-
ance alleged defendant acted towards plaintiff
assess exemplary damages. Rejected.
9. That NO money received should be regarded
as discharge, unless 1t was accepted with full
knowledge and understanding Of the transac-
ton. Rejected.
10. That If they find for plaintiff they should
consider the injuries to feeling and reputation.
II. That If they find for plaintin they should
give Qe1e0OSQt Credit for what InnnQyS q hao
paid. Rejected.
:. A. That the admission of defendants counsel
mat the promise OF marriage was made it
any damages the jury might assess, and these
facts to be considered as conclusively proven
B. II the jury believe that, although the two
letters marked A and were not written by
defendant, but they were written by another
person and sent by defendant, they are entitled
to the same credit as though written by him.
c. That testimony by comparison of hand
writing is conclusive and Is entitled to but little
Melget we ELECTED because OF the two words
D. That the letters OF plaintiff introduced by
defendant are to be considered as corroborative
OF her real testimony so far as they may be
conflrmatory Of it. Rejected.
In evidence may be considered as competent
ciIcumstanttal evidence by the jury Rejected
g. That the failure Of defendant to appear
OF marriage alleged In the declaration, IS fact
from which the jury may infer that such prom
Use was made. Rejected.
Il; That If they believe that Mr. c. did not
write the letters s. c.; still IL they further be
heve that after defendant was informed of the
existence and contents of the letters, he &C
knoWledged them as his, he is bound by them
]. That II they find there was promise OF
marriage. such contract is sufficient, IL made
either Verbally or In writing Granted.
IL. That in assessing damages, the Jury may
take into consideration the injury to feelings
4. That 1t is not necessary to a binding con-
tract Of marriage that the defendant should
nave INTENDED to marry the plaintiff at the
provided defendant attempted to make plain
tiff believe she should be his wife. Granted.
l.. That the opinion OF experts as to hand
Writing wiring Is me most unsatisfactory and weakest
competent to compare and Judge OF the writ
ings in dispute. Rejected because the Jury
are sworn to try the case by the law and the
M. That they have a right to consider the
Iallure OF defendant to go on the stand is an ad-
mission on his part as to said letters. Rejected
marry her, and yet by his conduct he led her to
believe that he intended to marry her, they
should find for plaintiff. Rejected.
-: II Iney believe that there was contract
OF marriage and no particular time was fixed,
the law Will imply that they intended to marry
in reasonable time. Granted
I. II they DeheVe plaintiff was debauched and
sexually known by the defendant and 1t was
accomplished by means of promise of mar
rage on the part OF the defendant consent of
plaintiff may be implied. Granted.
q. 1t Is competent for them to cornpare the
Bristow letter with the letters in DISPUTE for
the purpose OF forming an opinion whether the
disputed writing Is genuine. Granted
ANOTHER LETTER FROM MRS. OLIVER,
Before the defendant offered their prayers
Gen. Butler said that he had received letter
written by the plalntin to lawyerin Kentucky
On the 10Th OF February last, tnStructtng him
TO sue Oliver for divorce
After some debate by counsel is was agreed
that Mrs. Oliver should take the stand and
testify to the genuineness or fasity Of the letter
Mrs. Oliver took the stand, and after the let
ter had been read testified that 1t contained her
sentiments and that she had caused It to be
written. The letter was sent to j. B. Houston,
and Is as follows:
"Mr. Turner sends this letter to YOU want
you TO inquire the amount OF property owned
by T. NJ. Oliver. He bought house at Nicholas
vile, KY, with 1900; he owned a farm at
Slickaway, he rented me there all that is on ii
belongs to him. He has old Mrs. Horner living
in 1t and his present wife. am advised by nv
friends of Kentucky to bring suit against hun.
He had wife living In \. C. when &c married
me. Mr.. Albert A. Willis OF Ky says am en-
titled TO what he has and that should at once
bring suit aga1nst-The charge Of bigamg which
j can as everybody In Louisville knows it.
"AU the damages g0n rec0per I piV diuide
equally uith you. Sue him for the eh0te amount
OF his property. He has store in the upper
part of the state carried on by Isaac y coI,,d