New-York tribune., 1881-12-03
SEEKING A MONEY COMPENSATION.

fURrHER EVIDENCE IN THE MEYER-ULLMAN
BREACH OF PROMISE sUIT-THE ARGUMENTS.
As the Gilman Meyer breach of promise case
approaches the interest shown in 1t increases
ysaterday the doors of United States Circuit Court
room had to be closed shortly after the proceedings be-
gan on account Of the eageress Of hundreds to gam ad
mission after there hardly standing room within
All the principals In the trial were
ear,v IN attendance and occupied their usual
positions in the courtroom. Miss Rosina Meyer, VINO
had given her evidence mainly the preceding day,
was placed the stand for cross-examinaon She do
MED that she had put up" Mr.. Rosentha TO KISS Miss
Ullman. she positive that Miss Ullman ana MT
Frank remained the parlor alone on the night OF the
NewYears party half an hour after the other members
of the household had retired.
This ended the testimony for the defence.
Several witnesses were called in rebuttal Miss Jo-
sephine Lehon produced the mask worn at the Purlm
ball by Miss Ullman. 1t not half mask as sworn
10 by Mr Meyer, but wire mask which covered the
whole face and which 1t would have been impossible
for any one raise and the features OF the wearer
under it. Mr. Uman father Of the plaintiff, said the da-
mond ring which Miss Ulman had said had been
given her by @ very dear friend was one which
he gave her on New Years Day. he
also denied several statements sworn to by Meyer
in his evidence Isaac r. Cohen who at the Purim
ball. said that he did not see Mrs Unan pronenadhg
with Mr. Meyer The latter asked him to point out Miss
Iulmap and promised him bottle of wine II he would
do so. He did SO and the wine was paid He also
said that Meyer In the carriage before the Unans
entered IL on the return from the ball
Miss Ullman was recalled. She said that Mr. Meyer
had sworn TO what not true when he said that she
admitted that the charges he made against her were
true she r. denied that she had invited him to enter
the carra She explained IN reference to the diamond
ring; she told Mr. Meyer that IT had been given to her
by q dear and intimate friend, old gentleman She
was about explain that the gyer was her father but
t.laN NzNt and
init further explanation
This closed the evidence in the case, and General
Pryor summed up in behalf Of the defendant He said
that the defence did not retract the charge OF
because this had been alleged the defendant Lad
explicitly disclaimed any reflection on the plaintiff .
eharacter But it was apparent he continued that tnc
she posed as an Injured woman. According
tSken place in April 1881, whereas the snt begun
in january 1881 The marriage contract was not valid
under the statute OF frauds as II was yerDai contract
AS TO the matter of damages they could be sought on
four grounds. The first was Tor the loss entaiioa
BY sSs failure he second 70 Was for the blight
the young womans future prospects 9f IN gnnrf
punitive damages He argued that there was nc
that she was now in more aiuent circumstances If
she had become the wife OF the deiendan As 10 her
now had retinue Of admlring beaux She was not Of
the kind that pines wihers and expires in secuson
vent but was elastic" In all tne festivities Of fashiona
Die life s did not think there ought TO be any punitive
damages The defendant had sought an non
orable release from engagement which he elt wOnld
result only In OF misery for him. As TO the charge
against the plaintiffs reputation, the defence was not
responsible. - .,a,- l.. A., ,
He argued that no specific tire had been set WITHIN
which lbe marriage be soemnzed, and was about
70 Ositon to the ground taken by General
Pryor "a To the statute OF frauds when Judge Wallace
ntimated that unnecessary TO do so, as te CON
tenton of the defendant that point was untenape.
The counsel thereupon devoted his attention to other
ponts He asked the jurors return verdict against
his client they believed that Meyer had not crcuiateo
stories against her character.
Judge Wallace win charge the jury on Monday.