The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1879-04-01
THE OLIVER CAMERON SUIT.
uuy TifE JrEr SHOULD IND SHOCLD
NOT RIM IOR IAE UIDUH.

s,vfnr. " We'll. gentlemen, your rriycrs. Let's /
CT into this case as soon IS possible
Mr.. Toncy suggested that the prayers be sub /
,,,.,rI without argument on either side for II /
hey got to wranging the case might DO pro- |
ln.,I two or three days more.
ri, rourt-I don't think it will. Read your
tru t-.
rne prayers we're then read ON hchnlf OF tho /
,l,utr aud we're granted IN substance as fol-
lows:
Tb, i.iry werc instructed that thoy must nnd
IN favor 81 mo plaintiff il they believed that
n promise Of marriage had been made.
either To take place within Il reasonable
,.,ce. or without specifying any time and
that within reasonable timo the plaintiff
had requested fulllment OF the promise. and
bcsn refused They could infer accordance VI
su,n promise from her conduct toward him.
They could infer a promise. request II fulfill
mont and refusal. from the facts and circum-
stances 81 'ho ease. II there was both a prom.
isc Of marriage and seduction. special dam
occa for tho seduction would DO allowable.
provided satisfaction for tho seduction
had no, been given already. Injury to the
plaintiffs icoings and reputation could also be
considered in assessing damages A promise to
marry would uo valid. whether in writing or
verbal The lury could give ncr a verdict In any
amount not 20 exceed $4,000 provided
she had rot already received satisfaction
for the alleged seduction. VIII .thcr the
defendant intended to marry the plaintiff or
not II ho caused her to believe that lac did. the
Jury must find in her favor. II no particular
time was fixed for the marriage. the law will i'm
ply that it should bc in n reasonable time II
the defendant dchauched the plaintiff under
cover OF u promise Of marriage. the plaintiffs
acceptance Of the promise could be inferred
from that.
The Court instructed tho Jury that II ls com
pctent for them TO compare the Brstow letter
which is admitted to be genuine with the let
tiers in dispute, for the purpose OF forming In
their own opinion whether the isputed writing
is genuine in the light Of all the testimony.
Some half dozen prayers offered were rejected
Gen. Butler said that before he went On for
his side he had something to say that might In
elect, prevent the asking Tor n new trial, IL
such thing should become necessary. He
hgd in his possession q letter written by Mr..
oliver dated Fob. %, 1879 10 bring suit against
Mr.. Oliver, in Kentucky. AS her husband. The
letter came TO him, from leading lawyer in
Kentucky. and he did not believe that she would
dispute its genuineness.
Objection was first made by the plaintiffs
counsel To- It's reception and then withdrawn.
AMI Mrs; Oliver went on the stand
Gen. Butlcr-Did you write or cause TO be
written this letter showing it TO herli
Mrs. Otivrr luiter reading the leiferl-ThOse
ar my i,nt ments trising from the chair.
Gen; Butl.rEIhey are' Well. SIT down.
Mrs. Oliver said she thought that she had
written to Thomas Is. Houston. an attorney nj
law at Lexington. Ky. on the goth Of February
last. She resided in this city. at ~ Delaware
avenue. corner Of street. She caused the let
terto be written. The letter was then read. US
follows:
Mr. Turner sends this letter to you. wan,
you 60 inquire me amount Of property owned b. T.
worth si2oo He ON ned farm at sckswny. % rented
Mr. Hove. Vins on It. ana hs present Vie an, al.
N.ci hy my friends Of Kentucky 10 brinr sut AGAINST
married ne. The Hon ALERT VAN. q X, ntneky
once begin suit AGAINST INN on the charge Of bisamy
which can rrose. a. everybody ~ Louisville knows L
yOu him The whole amount ni his prop,ri,. lie
sss i' Goai sndi ' ,ce.ed IN emaaf sq At o. NJ
ershurgl that l. Kept " Oeorge = Gould. Al this -
Oliver which can oe proved. Please invesiisate aud
NJ. MAYS 65iysss, y Delay iis ayenue,
Mrs Oliver then retired from the stand after
which prayers for the defendant were read; and
the jury w"r" instructed that il the plaintiff had
received $1,000, and had. given = receipt " in
claims after the alleged promise Of
marriage. that would prevent her receiving
ree s.IHS was proeured By dSseit or or
fraud or had been so worded by mistake. The
ance OF evidence and If she had testified false
ly. knowingly. In regard to some material par
ticulars of the case her testimony ought TO be
rejected entirely. A witness who Is false in one
thing. must be considered fuse In all.
Gen. Butler said that so far rs his side was
10 the jury without argument upon the insiruc-
tons OF the Court MI. Toney. 81 the other
side. speaking Tor himself expressed simi ar
willingness. Mr. Peters. however. objected
and thought it would not be- doing full justice
The Court said that ne should confne the
argument 10 two hours on both sides.
Mr.. Peters did not believe they could review
The Court thought they would struggle
harder In mat time to get away from than keer
Mr.. Toney opened for the plaintiff. He fen
that II was unnecessary 70 say anything 10 The
Jury OF the important part they played in this
judicial drama. Tor they had closely attended
upon the evidence. and would show lmplrtlai'
ivy in the discharge OF their duty, lot tho re-
suit be what it might. He spoke in behalf Of q
irlcniiess and deserted woman. He hoped
that their verdict would 60 forth. trumpet
knew no distinction between man and woman
IN dispensing justice. and that the mar
hlfh IN power and eretgit wealth eoniit
10 bp"ken the reputation OF u woman Hnc
escape punishment Able talent had been EN-
lloyrd 10 save this aged culprit from the cVi
result of his acts and the consequences Of his
own misdteds. He urged the jury to arise IL
their might aud become protectors to this de-
fenceless woman. He said that IL WIS urged
that the defendant was too aged to have hac
reason 10 enter into "A marriage contract. They
counts wer. not published of aged pairiHrchs
marrying Young women. their juniors IN Year,
sufficient - Dc their granddaughters. Their
we're three propositions IN TINS cas-" 10 o. con
sdcred. First. was there prom So OF II. ar
Tlnge made ANA accepted Second, IT. so, ma
II been kept Third. what were the damage
due the paintin TOR tho failure 10 comply
with the contract? He then reviewed the evi
dence. taking the case OF the plaintiff from The
time she met the defendant n New Orleans 4
the subsequent events that fruuspired IN TIM
city. lie never believed that Mr. Cameron in
tended to marry Mrs. Oliver. but that he laid
deep nnd dHmuubls scheme TO dehauch an'
ruin her. He had little 70 say ~ the MAJ
Oliver who came all the way from Kentucky II
blacken the plaintiffs character Tor his his
tory. as told 10y himself was ample 10 staml
him In the eyes of men NJ bDth drspi'able nni
infamous. Then came Mrs Hrnrqucs trip
ping into court, and told her story with sucl
regularity and precision ~ 10 rem nj him O
tho animui m tho treldWiN. Herr had been
checkered life and woul not stand mu'h Ven
tlating. Next game the my olI let'nr- from
Mrs Oliver TO Mr.. Cameron, all breathing th
same sad strain 0t injured love and oluildrnco
heseeching him 10 lulll his word. and save he
from shame AMI exposure. Ia hls OpiuiO
those letters nailed simon Cameron 10 the eros
Of conviction.
In apenkinR upon the testimony ~ export.
lac claimed that IL was not reliahlr and ct"l "a
opinion delivered 10y Chief Justice Cartier tn
presiding Judge in this triad in tic case q
Cowi. at Beale wherein he said, " or all tes
tlmouy that comes before court, that OF an eN
port Is the most unsatisfactory anu unreliable.
THIS WAS a case in which Il woman WINS seek y
PREPARATION for the trenchery and inldrllty OF