The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-05-13
LESLIE GETS $4,000.
The Sensational Breach of
Promise Case Ended.
WILLIAMS TO PAY THE PENALTY.
aeoper, the Morphine Seller, Escapes
on . Technicality-Poker swind-
iers in Court-The Biotter.

AMER four days trial the sensational breach
a ,rouise suit Of Leslie Bushnell against W.
4 Williams terminated yesterday In q verdict
a. Miss Bushnell for $4,000 damages, the jury
srrexing that Williams had ruined her under
rsosn.se OF marriage, and should therefore be
pmpelled 20 pay damages to his victim.
Will II. Thompson, counsel Tor Leslie Bush.
oeIl. began his argument as soon a. Judge Os-
bcfa convened court. and made q strong and
eonvincing appeal 20 the jury. He reminded
ther OF the fact that even tho ugh Williams had
betrsyed and seduced an English girl on the
ocean and In England, she had q right 10 appeal
10 the law OF America; that English and Ameri-
sau law reaches over all the world. melting out
,ustice TO rich and poor alike. He read Mrs.
williams letter 10 Miss Bushnell to show that
no, even the divorced wife of the man who had
betrayed the unfortunate English girl consie-
sred her the vile and fallen woman that Wiz
Hans sought to make her. He reminded the
jufy OF Christs words TO the fallen woman who
was about to be stoned, when He wrote upon
The sands OF the beach, ego and sin no more,"
and Of hts words TO those about to insiiet the
punishment: ''let him who Is without sin cast
he fisst stone" Then Mr. Thompson sked the
iury 20 be generous and charitable, and say to
De woman who was led sstray IN this case. ago
snd sin no more"
Judge Osborn instructed the Jury that II they
found that contract of marriage was entered
into, end Miss Bushnell was ready TO fulHil IL
and williams was not. she Is entitled 70 dam
aces; that the jury can consider what pecuniary
damages she sustained by reason OF the loss OF
such home rs Williams could have provided
for her. not exceeding the amount claimed. He
foi them that IL a man dcbauches and saduees
woman by reason of her trust end confidence
IN him because Of a contract TO marry her, aud
then abandors her, il was not necessary for her
70 make any further demand before bringing
suit; that II she was led TO believe that he In
tended 70 marry her aud she relied upon that
belief he Is liable, although no may not have
intended 10 marry her. be said, also, that If
there VISA promise Of marriage and 81 was
mrde for the purpose OF criminal intimacy, and
plaintiff knew and agreed TO 1t, she could not
recover damages; that mere idle words are not
sufficient 10 make q contract. and n a promise OF
marriage YVES made as reward 10 Miss Bush
rel FOR criminal intimacy. IL is not binding. be-
esnse the law does not encourage acts OF Illicit
Intercourse. He reminded them that no promise
70 valid that Is founded wholly upon criminal
or unlawful consideration, and that mental suf-
iersngs or anguish founded on disappointment
could not be considered as an element of dam
ages II the consideration was unlawful: that II
these relations were entered into by Miss Bush
nell for her own pleasure willingly, there could
Be no seduction and no damages, and II there
was no contract of marriage, even II there was
seduction. there could be no damages assessed.
The jury retired st noon, and at 2:45 in the
afternoon returned verdict for $4,000 damages
for seduction under breach of promise OF mar
Rage. Williams attorney Immediately gave
notice OF motion for new trial.