Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-04-09
he defends Mt at, about and after the time

the defendant promised tC marry the plair-
llII, ana that the plaintiff accepted these
promises In good faith and promised to
| marry the defendant, then the burden of
| the proof Is upon the defer dant to establish
by preponderance of evidence any de-
tense to or release from any such promise
and 1t would not be defense IL he had had
Illicit relations with her before or afte-
such promise, CT that he had been inform ed
oy ner prior TO said promise that she had
mad Illicit relations with another.
The defendant. having asserted that he
had had carnal knowledge of the plaintiff
before the making of the alleged promise
10 marry, and having asserted that he
knew she was not a virgin and free from
sexual fault at the time of his first inter
course with her, thu jury are instructed
that' even II they believe from the evidence
that the plalntin was not chaste before
such intercourse with the defendant and
that he knew of such previous unchastitv.
such facts woul1 not justify a verdict
for the defendant If the Jury believe that
the contract Of marriage was therefore
made. te
If the Jury find from the evidence that
the plaintin did tell the defendant. as he
states, that she had been imprudent with
James c. Rodes, and thereafte- and after
the death Of his wife. he promised to marry
the plaintiff, and she him, the fact that
s,1,, sne had INFORMED him that she had had
Illicit relations with the said Rodes would
not AFFECT the validity of his contract of
marriage or further justify his refusal To
keep said promise. ~
As TO Damages.
II the jury find from the evidence that
'ne oeienoant was married on the 29th day
oi april 1885, that he kept and caused
10 De kept that marriage secret there
after. and that without disclosing the fact
Of that marriage he promised to marry the
plant tiff. or repeated or avowed a previous
~ made engagement of marriage with her
such secret marriage would be no defense
to this action.
The Jury ara tbo.
Tor the plaintiff in estimating the damages
they are to consider all the facts in eyj
dence as to the relations between the par
Ties up TO the breaking of the promise the
prospective pecuniary and social advan-
tsges to the plaintiff from such marriage.
the INJURY to the plaintiffs feelings and
lepulatlon py It's violation, the manner and
circumstances of It's violation, and the suf-
fering of the plaintiff caused thereby, and
ltS effectS upon her means Of earning a
nvehhood in the future: and the jury are
also TO take into consideration the wrong
committed by the defendant and may award
exemplary damages well.
If the jury find for the plaintiff and they
rurther hnd that the plaintiff was chaste
and pure from sexual fault, save with the
defendant; or if they further believe, tnat
the defendant knew this and that the at
tempt to impeach the plainuT's chastity
and character was not made in good faith
by him, but merely as a means of defense
or to injure the plaintiff, then they NAV
consider those facts in assessing the dam
the amount charged in the declaration, to
Wit, $4,000.
For the Defense.
The instructions asked for by the defense
as finally amended and allowed, were as fol-
lows:
Before the plaintiff can recover in this
action the jury must believe from all the
evidence that the contract was entered into
between the plaintiff and the defendant by
rhAU raaH r1-ffh oal
come husband and wife.
If the jury find from the evidence that
statements were made by the plaintiff and
defendant in the presence Of or to third
persons that they were engaged to be mar
ried to each other or that they intended to
marry each other. that such statements
were made pursuant to prior understand
ing and agreement between the plaintif and
defendant for the purpose of deceivng such
third persons, and were not made In good
faith, such statements are not to be taken
as constituting or evidencing the existence
Of a contract to marry.
The jury are Instructed that the burden
of proof to esta blish the contract sued on
is upon the plaintiff, and that they should
hnd for the defendant, unless they believe
from all the evidence in the that 1T
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 evil
dence that a contract Of marriage was en-
tered into between the plaintiff and the de-
Z
evidence that prior to that time the plain
ti1 had been guilty of lewd and lascivious
conduct with other men, and that such fact
was unknown to the defendant then the
defendant was not bouLd by such contract,
but was by said fact of prior lewd and
lascivious conduct, II 1t had existed, re-
leased from any obligation to marry the
plaintiff, and had the right to refuse to
perform such contract; and this is so by
reason Of said fact, if it had existed,
whether at the time Of his refusal or not,
he knew of such prior lewd and lascivious
conduct.
If the jury shall find from the evidence
that the plaintiff had been guilty of lewd
and lascivious conduct with a man named
or called James c. Rodes, and that the de-
fendant had condoned such acts with said
Rodes, yet. if they find from the evidence
that the plaintiff had been guilty Of lewd
and lascivious conduct with some other
man, the verdict must be for the defendant,
even II the knowledge of such conduct did
not come to the defendant until after his
refusal to marry the plaintiff.
If 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
lieved therefrom. they may, in mitigation
or the damages, consider the plaintiffs
general character, if the same was bad, and
they may also consi Ter. for the said pur-
pose. the plaintiffs admitted want of vir-
tue, unless they believe that she was Sc
duced by the defendant
Exceptions Noted.
Each side noted exceptions 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
the limitation to time indicated Satur-
day was satisfactory.
Want No Limit to Time for ArEu-
Mr.. Butterworth said he thought each
lawyer in the case was anxious for
termination and would not needlessly con-
sumo time. There were twenty-four or
twenty-five days Of testimony to be gone
over, and II counsel were to help the jury
in their review of the testimony they would
necessarily have to consume considerable
time. He referred to the wide range of
facts with which they would have to deal
/ lie asked that no limit be fixed, but that
| the court take the assurance of counsel
| TO use as much dispatch as possible
Mr. Wilson said he also would ask the
| court not to limit them. He did not desire
| 10 consume any more time than was due to
/ the cause. They had had vast amount of