Asheville daily citizen., 1894-04-07
APPEALS TO THE JUDGE
THE LAW In THE BRECKIN-
RIDGE CASE.
PIE adin@s Of Efoih sides which
they Wish incorporated In the
Judges Charge to the Jury.

WASHINGTON, April AT II O'Clock
this morning Coldcron Carlisle began
TO read in Judge Bradlev's court a vo.
luminous prayer on behalf of the plain
TIT IN the i'oiard.Brcca inridge suit.
MAJ. Shilby followed with prayers for
tie defendant and then argument was
catered upon.
Inc instructions which Carlisle asked
tie court t. give to the Jury in behalf Of
the plaintiff set forth that the promise
given by brcckinridge was such rs to
constitute binding contract; that the
plaintiff had married no one and COM
NIT ted no breach Of contract, and that.
even Il the assertions made were true.
wtlch were denied, us to the relation
SUSTAINED by the plnintilf with othe,
men, this would not invaidate the con.
tract; that defendants contention that
the agreement OF marriage between him
s'ii ard the plaintiff was not intended to
be Kept, bat was entered Into for the
purpose of DECEPTION. must be sustained
by a prep)nIcrance OF evidence in order
to have weight with the Jury; that
whether the defendant promised mar
riasc to the plaintiff in good faith
or rot has no effect on the plaintiffs
claim as she received the promise ia good
faitl and performed her part OF the
agreement; that if the jury find that the
de'endhnt was secretly married on tn. |
29fh OF April last and thereafter made a !
promise to marry the plaintiff and by hi. !
breach pi contract so made the plaintiff !
nas hcen injured pecnniarlv, socially or .
9th rwse SO rs to affect her means o' I
gaming livelihood ia the future the iury
must bring in verdict l1r damages. and
Tic ability or inability Of the decndan,
to pay he damages DOGS not affect the
p"''n,'. right 10 sn. The prayers o
he r'fin;tl we're l.. O. number.
Mdl'r Shelby rea lc prayers for thu
deIrndant These W.. ,o1talpcd in eiph,
ni'ci paragraphs Iii >u5stance as follows
II" Jury III order t. md tor the plaintiff
mast agree that the p.aiutiI and defend
a't 'hiefcu VITO C'u>rdct to becom,
"'sh''"d 'ihd Wi'r. I1at ii there wer
h' 'E'Hai a%ffenie' To marry, then no
!, tNiciltS III the J. cst,lcc OF others car
!" |'"'n rs /" c,a.Iact of marriage,
'"'' t"rt'tul II II .ar agreements were
"!,'' pursuant to understanding for
nth,r purpo.cS; thi rs improner rela.
a',"'. hl1 'NlI.d 1ct"ecn the plaintiff
lhl t'It defendant uror to the allege'
promise 81 tnatriag th, burden of proof
was on ne plaiut 10 show that i'm
pr, "'f relations wlti! Other men had no.
Aistcd prior to fial ,in,. that as hc d,
cAuaut was married 10 MS uresent wit. ,
m April % 1S93, uny agreement To-
t'rr' amer that WIS void; that even
.h* lA'l find that contract to MARI,
vas entered into, they must take int,
consideration whether The plaintiff had
'Srn gully OF intimate relations with
'tlrr nen unknuWr t. the defendant
Nhr' ne cont act was made, and must
!e instructed that he fctcndant had
'2ht to break the contract on attaininr {
nch knowledge; Jh1t if the plaintiff
mace threats aganl the defendant +.
oIfce HIN to promise to marry her the,
ne l1ty must find for the defendant.
hat 1t the jury find that a contract ex
sted and that after the making of a con.
ract the plaintiff bv threats on his Inf
'Iarea The defendant in state of tcrro,
nch acts excused the defendant from
marriage.