The morning call., 1894-04-08
Judge Bradley Against
Breckenridge.
BAD FOR THE COLONEL.
That Is the Way Matters Look
Now.
ARGUMENT ONLY JUST BEGUN.
the Plaintiff Would
Seem to Have Rather the Best
of the Case.

WASHINGTON. April THE prospect of
a dry legal argument in the POllard-Breck-
inridge case did not prove sufficiently at
tractive to draw out even member Of the
bar. Neither principal was there, al
though their lawyers bristled with legal
documents, while in their wake followed
sundry colored porters laden with stacks
of bound volumes.
The proceedings were begun by Mr..
Carlisle. who said that in the prayer of
plaintiff for instructions to the jury four
teen distinct instructions, covering every
possible aspect of the case. were asked of
the court. Stripped of their legal verbiage,
the substance of the instructions asked
for was as follows: That this is a suit for
breach of promise of marriage, and if the
jury finds from the evidence that there
were mutual promises of marriage be-
tween the plaintiff and the defendant. and
If defendant was married thereafter, / t
constitutes breach of promise; if plaintiff
and defendant were found to have been
intimate before the promise of marriage
was made that would constitute no de-
tense, and IL plaintiff had been intimate
with others and defendant knew it before
he made such promise it was no defense.
The burden Of proof that there was
to be sem blance of a marriage contract,
with the understanding that there was
not to be a contract carried out, rested
upon the defendant, and the jury must be
convinced by preponderance OF evidence
that such was the fact The jury must find
for the plaintiff, unless they find that there
was mutual agreement not to carry out
the semblance of the contract, and find
it by prepouderance of evidence. The
conduct of plaintiff and defendant after
making the contract was to be considered.
If the promises are found TO have been re-
peated by him before Mrs. Blackburn and
Major Moore, the fact of secret under
standing must be proved by a preponder-
ance Of evidence, and the fact of an inti-
macy between the two was not defense.
The secret marriage to another after
promises to marry defendant made before
others does not constitute defense. but is
an aggravation of the damages. LIZ the
jury finds plaintiff was intimate with no
man save defendant and that the attempts
to iInpeach her character were made, not
in good faith but to contrive defense
they are to consider that fact as an aggra-
walton Of the damages.
The prayers of the defense for instruc-
tions, which were read by Mr.. Shelby.
were fewer in number. They were in sub
stance as follows: Before the plaintiff
can recover damages the jury must believe
that a contract was ntered into between
the plaintiff and the defendant by which
they agreed to become hus band and wife.
II there was no actual agreement. state
ments made in the presence of others do
not constitute promise of marriage and
il made pursuant to mutual understand
ing are not to be considered evidence. The
admitted relations between the plaintiff
and the defendant and his support of her
are not to be considered evidence OF an
agreement of marriage. The burden of
proof of the engagement rests on the
plaintiff. The defendant having been
married on April 90. 1898. an agreement
made to marry thereafter is void If the
jury finds that contract to marry was
entered into and if they further believe
that the plaintiff was guilty of wrong con-
duct with other men, such fact being uD-
known to defendant, he was by it released
from his obligation to carry out the con-
tract, and this Is so whether at the time of
his refusal he knew Of such conduct or
not. If the jury find that there was
contract to marry aud the plaintiff by
threats or conduct made the defendant be-
lieve his life was in danger from her, he
was excused from fulfilling the contract;
but If the jury find that the plaintiff was
not without fault with other men, the
verdict should be for the defendant even
if he knew of her fault.
The first argument for the plain tiff was
made by Attorney w. G. johnson aud Mr..
Shelby, followed with the opening argu-
ment for the defense.
There was a little passage between Mr..
Shelby and Mr.. Wilson regarding the part
which Miss Polard's threats should play
in the case. Mr.. Shelby said threats which
would justify man in securing a divorce
would also justify him in breaking a con-
tract to marry. Mr.. Wilson contended
that this rule would not apply in the case
because of the defendants misconduct and
because Of an exhibition by him Of pur-
pose to evade the contract, and that no
threats made after the secret marriage
could justify ruling for the defendant.
The argument was closed by Mr.. Wilson
for the plaintiff. All the speeches were
on the legal points involved In the prayers,
and the counsel agreed that in some re-
spects the case was a unique one. The
argument was significant in showing that
the defense does not intend to set up as a
legal plea that any of the promises made
by Colonel Breckenridge to Miss Pollard
were under duress exercised by her with
pistol.
Judge Bradley reserved his decision on
the instructions until Monday, although
he intimated he would grant one of the
prayers for the plaintiff, and said in speak
ing of another prayer: II see no reason
TO change my opinion, that the existing
marriage at the time he made the promise,
if he made it. is no defense"
The length of the arguments was a mat
ter discussed by the Judge and attorneys,
and while Judge Bradley thought five
hours for a side would be sufficient the
lawyers wanted more time. No conclu-
sion was reached.
BUTTERWORTH ON POLLARD.
he vc