The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1894-04-09

y uOg0 bradley Gives the Pollard br9ck-
1nridge Jury Their Directions.
WASHINGTON, April 9.-Madeline Pol
lard wore her most becoming bonnet
when she entered the circuit court ac-
companied by Sister Ellis and her coun-
sci today. She took her usual chair be-
fore the judge, her profile to the jury.
The audience was composed mostly of
members of the bar and was smaller
than customary.
Judge Bradley first announced his de-
cision of the prayers for instructions.
Nine prayers of the plaintiff were granted
in modified form and five of them re-
fused Six prayers of the defendant
were granted in modified form, or substi-
tutes granted, and five were refused
The instructions granted in condensed
form are as follows for the plaintiff:
First-If the jury find from the evil
dence that there were mutual promises
of marriage as claimed in the declara-
ton that would constitute a binding con :
tract. and if the defendant married an
other person that would be breach
OF the contract upon which the
plaintiff would be entitled to sue. Illicit
relations with him, or with others before
the contract was made, if known to him,
would be no defense.
Second-The burden of proof is upon
the defendant to show by a preponder-
ance of evidence, that there was an
agreement that merely the semblance of
contract not TO De carried OuL was
agreed upon between them.
Third-If promises were made by the
defendant in bad faith, but accepted by
the plaintiff in good faith, this bad faith
on his part would not constitute a de-
Tense.
Fourth-The conduct of the plaintiff
and defendant at, about and after max
ing the contract, is to be considered in
judging its good or bad faith.
Fifth-If the jury find that the de-
PENDANT promised the plaintiff in good
faith to marry her, the burden of proof
ponderepce of proof or defense or re-
lease, and it would not be defense that
he had Illicit relations with her, or she
told him of illicit relations with others
Sixth-If before the contract there was
intercourse between the two and the de-
PENDANT knew that she was previously
unchaste, it constitutes no defense.
Seventh-If she informed him that
she had been impure with Rhodes, that
constitutes no defense.
Eighth-The secret marriage does not
constitute defense.
Ninth-If promises were not made
until after the secret marriage it does
not constitute defense.
Tenth-If the jury finds for the
plaintiff they are to consider
the prospective advantage to the
injury to her feelings, reputation and
chance for earning livelihood by that
breach of promise and may award ex-
emplary damages as well.
Eleventh the jury find that the plain
tiff was chaste save with the defendant
and that the attempt to impeach her
character was made for the purpose of
a defense, they may consider the fact in
awarding damages.
Then follow the instructions for the
defense:
.nE
the jury must believe from all the evil
dence that contract was entered into
between the plaintiff and defendant to
become husband and wife.
Second-If the jury find that state
ments were made in the presence
were engaged to be married, and
such statements were made pursuant to
an understanding for the purpose of de-
ceiving third persons. such statements
are not to be taken as constituting or ev-
idencing contract
Third-The burden of proof to estab-
lish the contract is upon the plaintiff.
Fourth-If before the contract the plain
tiff was guilty of lewd or unchaste con-
duct with other men, unkno wn to the de-
PENDANT, he was not bound by the contract
and may avail himself of such defense,
whether at the time of his refusal he
knew of the conduct or not.
Fifth-If the jury believe that the
plaintiff was guilty of unchaste conduct
with other men. unknown to the defense,
they must find for him, even if knowl-
edge of it did not come to HIM until after
the refusal.
Sixth-The jury may in mitigation of
damages consider the plaintiffs charac-
ter and conduct, if the same were not
good, and the plaintiff was not seduced
by the defendant, may consider her want
of virtue.
The Judge was anxious to limit the
time for argument to five hours on each
side, but after both sides had protested
against the time limit, he yielded the
point.
Attorney Calderon Carlisle then opened
fha arrnmer for fha r1lainfiR