New-York tribune., 1894-04-08
PRAYERS OF THE PARTIES
ARGUMENTS AS TO INSTRUCTIONS IN
THE BRECKINRIDGE CASE.
CONVENTIONS OF COUNSEL AS TO THE BURDEN
OF PROOF IN CERTAIN PHASES
OF THE CASE.

Washington April This morning Caldcron
Carlisle began to read In Judge Brldleys court a
voluminous prayer behalf OF the plaintiff In
the Pollard Breckinridge suit Major shelby fol-
lowed with prayers for the defendant. and then
argument was entered upon. There were few spec
tators and very little interest manifested In
this purely technical phase OF the case. Neither
Miss Pollard nor Colonel BreckInridge was present
during the hearing.
The instructions which Mr.. Carlisle asked the
Court TO give to the jury In behalf OF the plaintiff
set forth that the promise given such
as to constitute a binding contract That
the plaintiff had married no one and had
committed breach Of that contract. and that
even II the assertions made were true (Which was
denied as to the relations sustained by the plain
tiff with other men. this would rot invaliiate the
contract That the Defendants contention that the
agreement OF marriage between himself and the
plaintiff not intended to be kept. but was on
tered into for purposes Of deception. must be sus-
tancd by preponderance Of evidence In order 10
have weight with the jury. Tha; whether III" d.
fendant promised marriage to the plaint'n In good
faith or not has no effect the plaintiHs claim.
she received the promise In good faith and per
formed her part Of the agreement. That II the
jury find that the defendant was secretly married
on the 18th ~ April last. and thereafter made a
promise to marry the plaintiff. and. 10y hs hr@fch
OF contract made. the plaintiff has been injured
pecuniarily socially or otherwise 50 ~ TO anect
her means OF gaining n livelihood In the future.
the jury must bring in verdict for damnG =, ana
the ability inability OF the defendant 10 pay
damages does not affect the plaiutns right II sue.
The prayers OF the plaintiff wore fOurt"'n IN mum
Der.
Major shelby read the prayers for the DEFENDANT
They were contained in eight brief PARAGRAPHS IN
substance follows:
The Jury. In order to find for tn" plantH, mus,
agree that the pa.ltin AMI the Defendant "ht"tS'
into a COntrac; become husband anu WIZ
That. II there no actual agreement 10 marry
then 70 statements ir the pres nee oi Otners can
taken AS a contract of Warrihg". anu pdtH'u-
larry II IN. agreement v~r" mad" pursuant ~" an
undo rstauGiug for other purpose lnat a. Iin,
proper relations had existed between IN" pahUu
ana the Defendant prior to "a" alleged promise ~
marriage. the burden Of proof "aS ON ~" Phlh'W
show that improper relations Win oih'I ~,
had not existed prior 10 that tim" nat as thrr
defendant was married 10 his present VII" on Nptii
.. 1892. ans agreement to marry after ihht phtr
was void That. even II The Jury hni ih't a con
tract To- marry entered into they must takr
into consideration whether the plIihtin had br"n
guilty OF relations with other men unknown 10 me
defendant when the contract "hs made. ana must
be instructed that the defendant hal tlc Hght 10
break the contract obtaining surh knowlcif"
That ~ the plaintiff made threats against IN" de-
fendauf 10 force him 10 promis" 10 marry her. thrn
the iury must hnd for the defendant That n they
and that a contrac, existed and after the making
~ the contract the paintin. by threats on his
NE placed the defendant I'm state of terror surh
acts excused the defendant from marriag"