Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-04-10
90 a. finally amended and allowed,

fendant by which they agreed with each
other To become husband and wite'
II the Jury find from the evidence that
statements were made by the piain'iii
and defendant In the presence OF or !"
third persons that they were engageu 'o
be married to each other or that they III
| tended to marry each other. that such
statements were made pursuant TO
| prior understanding and agreement be-
| tween the plaintiff and defendant for the
purpose Of deceiving such third persons
and were not made In good faith. such
| statements are not TO be taken as con-
stitutlng or evidencing the existence OF
| n contract TO marry.
The Jury are instructed that the bur
| den OF proof 10 establish the contract
sued on Is upon the plaintiff. and that
! they should find for the defendant unless
| they believe from all the evidence IN the
| case that II was mutually agreed between
the plaintiff and the defendant that they
were in fact to be married.
Even II the Jury should find from the
| evidence that n contract OF marriage was
entered into between the plaintin ana
| the defendant, yet. II they further find
| from the evidence that prior to that time
| the plaintiff had been guilty OF improper
| conduct with other men, and that such
| fact was unknown TO the defendant, then
| the defendant was not bound by such
| contract. but was by said fact OF prior
| improper conduct. II II had existed re-
| leased from any obligation TO marry the
plantin. and had the right to refuse to
perform such contract: and this is so by
reason Of said fact. II it had existed.
whether at the time Of his refusal or NOT
| be knew Of such improper conduct.
If the jury shall find from the evidence
4 al n
proper conduct with a man named or
| called James G. Rodes. and that the de-
fendant had condoned such acts with
said Rodes. yet. il they find from the evil
dence that the plaintiff had been guilty
of improper conduct with some other
| man, the verdict must be for the de-
fendant, even il the knowledge of such
| conduct did not come TO the defendant
until after his refusal to marry the plain
tiff
II the Jury find from the evidence that
! there was a contract OF marriage between
| the plaintiff and the defendant. and also
| fail to find that the defendant has been re-
| leved therefrom. they may. in mitiga-
| ton of the damages, consider the plain
| tiffs general character. If the same was
! bad and they may also consider for the
said purpose. the plaintiffs admitted want
was led astray by the defendant.
EXCEPTIONS.
Each side noted exception to the judges
| action in admitting instructions for the
other side. and in excluding such of its
own as were not allowed.
After Judge Bradley had finished an
nouncing his decision upon the prayers
submitted, he asked If it was understood
IN mi -
| Saturday was satisfactory.
Mr. Butterworth said he thought each
| lawyer I'm the case was anxious for a
| termination. and would not needlessly
consume time There were twenty-four
| Of twenty-five days Of testimony To be
! gone over, and if counsel would help the
| Jury i'm their review of the testimony they
| would necessarily have TO consume con-
| siderable time. He referred 10 the wide
/ range OF Iacts with which they would
| have to deal. lie asked that no limit be
| fixed but that the court take the as
surance Of counsel to use as much dis
| patch as possible.
Mr. Wilson said he also would ask the
| court not TO limit them. lie did not de-
! sire to consume any more time than was
! due to the cause. They had had a vast
| amount Of evidence. lie would agree to
take as little time as possible, but he
! did hate to 20 into the argument with
| one eye on the clock all the time. The
! court could see how embarrassed
/ counsel would be with such "A limitation.
| He earnestly appealed to the court not
| TO limit them. TWO or three more hours
would make little difference.
Judge Bradley said he thought limit
| would be useful but he admitted that
| under tie circumstances Of the case II
! might be embarrassing. He would there
/ fore trust to the counsel and impose no
/ limit.
Mr.. Shelby here noted exceptions 10 the
| Judges decisions on the prayers so far
as they were adverse to the defense Mr..
| Wilson said it would be understood that
| such exceptions were noted on both
sides.
OPENING ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Carlisle then took his place before
| the fury 70 begin ,he opening argument
| for the plantm.
He referred to the fact that It had been
his duty month ago yesterday to make
the opening statement Of the case as to
what the plaintiff claimed would be
| proved in this case. The jury and others
| engaged in the case were performing
their duties in the community. Now it
was his duty to open the argument OF
| the case. They came now 10 present the
| case that was TO go To the jury. First, he
would claim that his opening statement
was careful and temperate; he believed
| that the promises then made had been
more than redeemed. The outline he
| had the1 given had been proved by credi-
| BILE witnesses other than his unfortunate
| client. He wanted to call attention TO
| the Importance of this case TO all OF them
| There were. as Major Butterworth had
said. three parties to this case-the plain
tiff. the defendant, and the community.
| He accepted that proposition OF Major
| Butterworth. He wanted the jury TO con-
! slider what that community was ana
what its relations were 10 the plaintln
/ and the defendant: what it had rlght 10
| expect of them; what each owed 10 the
community.
INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY.
The Jury. he said. was drawn from and
| represented the community. The Jury sai
| here TO represent the community In TINS
! case there was wider community tndii
! in ordinary cases-the people OF the lli'ed
| States. From the first day they hdu as
| sembled here the press or the Ohited
| States had been provided with TWO rows
| OF tables, an evidence of the interest INC
community throughout the United States
I
/ 10 this district. The plaintiff was Ken
| tuckian. born in the congressional dlslIlc'
represented by the defendant. she never
| came here until the year lSi. Inc de-
| fendant never came here except upon pub
| lie business to represent his constituents
| I'm the councils OF the nation. The plalnun
| was a friendless woman of humble origin;
| the defendant was a man Of high position,
| of distinguished origin, and was dlstlii-
| gushed man, known throughout the
! United States 1t would b. his duty rate
! on to point out what the community had
| "A right to expect from these parties, ana
who had the most debts unpaid.
| He then addressed himself TO what haoi
! been developed to the life OF the pldln-
! Tiff. He first reminded them that the de-
fendant was a man of prominence ana
| wide influence. He reminded them OF now
much IL was to his interest TO ma our
and to prove anything that might be To
| the discredt OF this poor girl certainly
| they could assume that whatever ne could
| do in that direction, with his VIDE IN
| iuence, his power, and his wide acqualnt-
| ance. he had done, and 1t was before the
| jury.
| He said this plaintiff was born near
| Frankfort, KY, the daughter OF a saddler'
| one OF several children; that sdddler was
| prominent as a Mason and Odd-Fellow.
| The defendant. as he had said himself.
| knew her father He said he had learned
| at the first interview with the plaintlIl
| that the father was dead. The rather died