The New York herald., 1879-03-30

stood it. was merely to give the plain
the testimony of MIR. Riddle would show that Mrs.
Oliver made no complaint of breach of promise to
wanted redress for. That being so. they could not
torture the language of the receipt into
to Mr. Riddle. Further. Mrs oliver in
her evidence testified that the money paid in
settlement of claim outside Of breach of promise
He thought there sufficient evidence existing TO
let the case go to the jury and be considered by
them.
MORE ELoouEScE FROM THE .sssEx STATESMAN"
General Butler said that assuming Mrs. Oiiver
theory of the improper mutual relations, she knew
of the claim wheE she accepted the $1,000 settle
ment in full for all claims and demands she says
that she had the breach of promise CASE IN her
mind. but that matters not. for the Court
would not allow evasion of the setlement
by such trumpery and nonsense. If the Court would
not sustain that settlement. how would a man ever
get rid of these harpies? What would bind them?
What protect the party entering into settlement In
good faith? If that settlement would not do, then
The % law favored settiemsntS but what was the use
of settling If designing woman could come pack
with second claim springing from out OF the nrst
and demanded farther satisfaction. This WIS estab-
fishing law destructive to the peace and welfare or
this community. and at the threshold he called
for a halt BY recognizing the validity
of this claim it would open the door to blacskmail-
ers, and could tell how soon he would be
victimized He asked the Court to rise and come to
the rescue of Tue community and assist in driving
out those women who disgrace the capital and pack-
mail the legislators. Teach them that the nails nails
must come to further blacken their victims
after entering ito settlement. Break the Chain OF
these suits which have come down from the time OF
Alexander Hamilton. who was drawn upon SO heavily
by blackmaier that his salary finally would not
support him. He assumed that the Court would
agree with him tat this receipt was settlenent IN
full of all claims upon the one side and. If At did,
then law makes it settlement upon the other
without permit ing any mental reservation
VIEWS THE COURT.
Tho Judge sand that the question was whether
there was any testimony tor the jury to pass upon
d
then they ought t and consider the Under
o rigid rule that he had adhered to for fifteen years.
where there S OF Of e
had no doubt t-they would do their duty.
The motion was denied
General Butler then made q third motion, which
was to the effect that Mrs. Oliver. by her state
nents, manner of living and conduct. was, in the
eve of the law. married woman; and. therefore.
she was estopped from consumm,ting another mar
The Court had n, doubt that this was marriage.
de facto, between her and Oliver. and would to that
extent stop them both from denying the legitimacy
of the offspring, bill contracted with a mer-
chant. But did it dis9ualify the party when they
abandoned the de.factO life from making contract
future? Could they not enter into voluntary con-
tracts?
rights in this latter. After this suit had been
brought the plant i'll wanted to Thomas Oliver
her husband. She was estopped by acts
the the (the jury absent from the room)
he would make short work of it. But this case must
be triea as any rs thHse % parties eame
poor recommended ion for Senator's wife, but If
after being inf rmed of all the adulterous
practices of the woman, the Sena or is fool enough
to marry her thG e is nothing to prevent it. This
womans history and practices run through the en-
tire case. and he believed her antecedent history
played the part of deception, and all knew that de-
ception did not bind in contract to marriage But
he had fears OF the jury running away with JUS
tice while he held the reins. so he would overrule
The court thensadjourned until Monday next.