The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-12-04
LOVES LABOR LOST,
As SHOWN IN IDA ULLmAN's SUIT.
Ciese Of ahe Testimony I'm the Meyer
UIIman Brcach-OEPromisc Case
The Fair and Subtle IagO"
How Richmond Looks
Upon II.
ROG'R A. PRYOR MAKES A STRONG DEFENCE

]
The trial Of the suit for $4,000 damage,
| for alleged breach Of promise Of marriage
brought by Miss Ida Ullman against Mr.
| Henry Never was continued in New York
on Friday IN the United States Circuit
Court, before Judge Wallace and jury.
Miss Rosina Meyer, sister Of the defend
ant, was recalled, and the direct eXamina-
ton was renewed.
"It is not true" she said, "that put
up Mr.. Rosenthal to kiss Miss Ullman, as
she has testified"
In reply TO questions put by Mr.. Wise IN
croSs-eXamination, she said: II was early
i'm the morning when Mr.. and Mrs. Ull-
man, Miss Lehon, and myself retired
after the party on New-Year's night.
am positive we left Miss Ulman and Mr..
Frank i'm the parlor when we retired. A.
far rs | can remember, | think it was from
half an hour to an hour before Miss III
man Joined us in the bedroom. ] know
| that we were i'm somewhat elaborate eve
ming dress. and | know that it must have
taken that time for us to undreSs.
don't think | thought anything OF my
| brother during the time. i heard Miss
! UIlman and Mr.. Frank ascend the stairs
! together, and heard them talking together
at Mr.. Franks bedroom door. | cannot
say whether the parlor door was open OF
not. 1t is true that Miss Ulman told me
on the morning of the Sth Of January that
she did not love my brother. | heard my
brothers testimony. The description OF
the contents OF the letter | wrote him Is,
rs far as | remember, correct.
This closed the defendants case.
Miss Ullman, the plaintiff, was then re-
called, and in answer to her counsel she
said that the testimony OF the defendant
/ that she had admitted the charges which
/ he had made against her at their final inter
/ view was incorrect.
o. Did you ever say to the defendant
/ that you did not love him at first, but that
your mother told you he would be good
| catch, and TO go for him. No, sir.
Counsel for the defendant then read q
/ letter from Miss Ullman to the defendant,
/ in which she says that she has Just received
a diamond ring from a dear friend. That
/ on New-Year's day they had received calls
| from IL A. VI. until they broke up at $3.50,
and that she sat up little longer with a
gentleman friend.
Mr.. PRYOR's ELOQUENT DEFENCE.
Mr.. Pryor, IN speech Of one hour and a
/ half, addressed the jury for the defence. In
the course OF this address he said the real
ground, according to the plaintiff, for the
suit, was to clear the reputation Of the
young lady from an imputatiOn that had
| been east upon it. The defendant denied
that any such allegations had been made by
/ him. He had not retracted the charge be-
/ cause he had never made il. This charge
of impropriety had been persisted in even
after the defendant had rcpudiated il in
| open court. He said the defendants an
swer 10 the suit was that the action was pre-
maturely brought. The date whenthc action
commenced was January, 1881, whereas,
according to plaintiffs own testimony, the
[ marriage was not fixed TO take place before
/ April. 1881. Then the contract was not
made in writing, and was valid only fol
one year. Ii the jury should decide that
/ the plaintiff was entitled to damages they
would have to consider the blight that
would be east upon her prospects in con-
/ tracing other matrimonial engagements,
her wounded affections, and assess the sum
according TO what the probable effect would
| be upon Miss Ullman. They would also
/ have to consider that the defendant was
comparatively poor man and could not
give the plaintiff those comforts that she
/ found in her fathers home.
A CATALOGUE OF CHARMS.
In considering those things the jury
should bear i'm mind that the young lady
was very beautiful and well versed in the
WAYS that ensnare the hearts Of susceptible
Young men. The evidence showed that she
had cutie a retinue OF admiring beauX.
Even while she had been engaged to the
defendant she had told OF the thrilling
pleasure she enjoyed in the society OF
other gentlemen. and had listened to
the suggestions OF an Englishman that
she ought not to be called upon to
leave New York to make her residence
In the benighted South. Ii they looked
on the face OF the young lady, as no doubt
the Jury had, like himself, with very great
pleasure, he felt certain that none OF them
had been able to trace thereon the rayages
of a ruptured heart. Mr.. Pryor concluded
his eloquent address by dwelling at length
upon the sacredneSs Of the marriage tie {;
that il differed from all other contracts, in
asmuch as it involved more momentous
consequences, and that the defendant was
entitled to commendation for desiring TO
dissolve a contract in which not only his
happiness Dul tlil VI sliiOlhSi was hnNi' W
be sacrificed.
MIR. WISE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.
Mr.. Wise commenced his address by re-
ference 10 the statement of defendants
counsel that no specified time had been
made for the solemnization Of the marriage
contract.
The Judge: IL is not necessary, Mr..
Wise. for YOU to address yourself to that
There is sufficient evidence to take 1t out
of the statute Of frauds.
Mr.. Wise, speaking Of the withdrawal OF
the charge of impropriety, asked the Jury
II they believed that Miss Ullman came
into court to make that charge against her.
self. then he hoped they would ind yer
dict for the defendant. He said II the de-
fendant did not intend to press that charge,
why did they allow the first witness to bc
cross-examined upon it? Ii was only when
tbev found how utterly impossible II was
for II 10 be sustained that they withdrew II.
He claimed that but for the interference oil
the defendants sister, whom he character
lied as "fair and subtle Iago," there
would have been no trouble between the
plaintiff and the defendant, and the jury
would not have been troubled with the
consideration OF this cause.
An adioIIrumpnf was then taken 10 III