Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1887-1895, 1894-04-10
CARLISLE'S PLEADING.
Strong and Eloquent Speech In
Miss Pollard's Behalf.
JUDGE BRADLBY's INSTRUCTIONS.

The Jury Is Given Minute Legal Directions
For Their Guidance, Dramatic Con-
trast Drawn of the Two Parties to the
Suit-JurOrs See a Tintype.
WASHINGTON, April 1G.-Attorney Cal
Geron Carlisle, who is more deeply versed
| In international law than in breach of
| promise litigations consumed the day in
| the criminal court in a review of the teSti-
mony before the jury in the Pollard Breck-
! inridge case. His statement was a de-
tailed dissection of the evidence and was
delivered in a clear, dispassionate manner,
although the lawyer at times referred to
Colonel Breckenridge i'll very soothing but
coolly worded terms.
The silver haired congressman conduct
ed himself very nonchalantly, joking with
his lawyers during the day, while Made
line Pollard, sitting directly in front of
him, kept her face shaded by black gloved
hand most of the time.
Only once was there any interruption of
the argument, and that was when Colonel
Breckenridge set the speaker right on the
point of a family title about which he
seemed to be rather particular All day
the closest attention was given to the
speech by jury and spectators, so that there
was deep silence in the courtroom. Mr..
y
sible that the speaking will last until Fri
day.
Judge Bradley first announced his de-
cision on the prayers for Instructions
Nine prayers of the plaintiff were granted
in modified form and five of them refused
Six prayers for the defendant were grant
ed in modified form or substitutes granted,
and five We're refused. Incidentally the
judge said that, while the burden of
proof rested on the plaintiff to show that
n contract to marry was entered into if
the defendant set up the defense that the
contract was not made in good faith the
burden of proof would rest upon him to
show that there was an understanding
that the contract was not to be carried out,
and that the statements made in the pres
ence of other parties were made with this
understanding on the part of the plaintiff
and defendant.
Judge Bradley's Instructions.
The instructions granted for the plain
tiff, in condensed form, are as follows:
First-If the jury find from the evidence that
there were mutual promises of marriage. as
claimed in the declaration, that would consti-
tute n binding contract, and if the defendant
married another person, that would be a 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 de-
PENDANT to show by preponderanCe of evidence
that there agreement that merely the
semblance of a contract not to be carried out
was agreed upon between them.
Third-If promises were made by the defend
ant in bad faith, but accepted by the plaintiff
in good faith, this bad faith his part would
not constitute defense.
Fourth-The conduct of plaintiff and defend
ant at. about and after the making of the con-
tract is to be considered in judging its good or
bad faith
Fifth-If the jury find that the defendant
promised the plaintiff in good faith to marry
her, the burden of proof rests upon him 10 es-
tablish by a preponderance of proof defense
or release, 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 inter-
course between the two and the defendant
knew that she previously unchaste it con-
stitutes no defense.
Seventh-If she informed him that she had
defense.
Eighth-The secret marriage does not con-
stitute a defense.
Ninth-If promises were not made until after
the secret marriage. it does not constitute a
defense.
Tenth-If the jury find for the plaintiff. they
to consider the prospective advantage to
her feelings, reputation and chance of earning
a livelihood by the breach of promise and may
award exemplary damages well.
Eleventh-lf the jury find that the plaintiff
was chastc save with the defendant. and that
the attempt to impeach her character was
made for the purposes of defense. they may
consider the fact in awarding damages.