The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1894-04-12
BRECKENRIDGE POLLARD.
BOTH SIDES OUTLINE CHARGES
TO THE JURY.
Marriage to Mrs, Wing Constitutes No
Defense, Neither VIII Madeline
Pistol Plays Cut Amy Figure IN
the Determination Of the Case.


WAsHINGToN, April THE pros
meets Of a very dry legal argument III
the Pollard breckenridge case did not
prove sufficiently attractive to ara"
out even the members OF the bar TO
Judge Bradleys court this morning
Neither Of the principals we've thefe
although their lawyers bristled Win
legal documents when they entered
while in their wake followed sundry
coIored porters laden with stacks Of
calf.bouud tones. The proceedings
were begun by Mr.. Calderon CARLISLE
who read to the court the prayer Oh
the plaintiff for instruction, to the
Jury. Fourteen distinct Instructions
covering every possible aspect OF the
case. were asked Of the court. STRIP
ped of their legal verbiage the SUBJ
stance of the instructions asked for
are as follows:
That this is suit tor breach OF
uromise OF marriage and II the jury
lind from the evidence that there were
mutual promises Of marriage between
the ulainiiH aud the defendant, II the
defendant was married thereafter, II
constitutes breach OF promise. II
the plaintiff aud defendant were found
10 have had illicit intimacy before the
promige Of marriage that would con
stjtute no defense and if she had
illicit intercourse with Others and he
knew il before he made the promise,
IL was not defense. The burden OF
proof that there was a secret marriage
contract with AN understanding that II
was not to be carried out, rested upon
the defendant and the jury must be
convinced by a prepOnderance OF eyl-
deuce that such was the fact. The
Jury must fud for the plaintiff unless
they find that there was II mutual
agreement not TO carry out the sem
blance of Il contract and find IL by n
preDOuderance of evidence Also
unless they find that the plaintiff did
not accept the promises from the de-
fendaut and knew at the time
that they were not made
ia good faith, but agreed with
MN llidl lllIN FilplllNN upb NO 'l''NlIbN'
aud this must be shown by n prepon-
derauce Of evidence. If he made the
promise to marry in bad faith aud
she accepted il in good faith, no de
Tense was constituted thereby, In de-
termiuing whether she understood the
contract to be in good faith the con
duct of the plaintiff and defendant at
and after the time OF making the con
tract are to be considered. II the
promises are found to have been re-
heated by him before Mrs Blackburn
and Major Moore the fact OF a secret
understanding must be proved 10y a
preponderGnce of evidence and the
fact of carnal knowledge between the
two is not II defense. If the jury be-
lieve the plaintiff to be unchaste and
the defendant knew of her unchastity,
that does not constitute Il defense, II
the jury believes that she told HIM
that she had been intimate with
Rhodes and thereafter he promised to
marry her that intimacy does not
form Il justification tor breach of
contract. The secret marriage after
promises to marry and before others
does not constitute defense, but an
aggravation of damages. That If he
was married April % kept that mar
riage secret and thereafter entered
into the contract thai marriage is not
a defense. The Jury is to consider all
the relations of the past years the
prospective Improvement in her CIR
culnstauces by the promised marriage,
the circumstances of the violation OF
contract and the wrong committed
and may give exemplary damages
Announcing the contract to third
parties with the additional humilia
ton to the plaintiff which the breach
uuder these circumstances constitutes
may be considered az aggraVa ion OF
damages. If the jury finds the plain
LiiI was chaste, save with the defend
-Nnt, and that attempts to impeach her
character We're made not in good
faith but to contrive n defense, they
are to consider the fact as an aggrava
tion of the damages
The prayer OF the defense for in
srructions, which was read by Mr.,
Shelby, were four in number. They
were, in substance. rs follows:
Before the plaintiff can recover dam
ages the jury must believe that con
tract was entered into between the
plaintiff aud defendant by which they
agreed to become husband aud wife.
II there was no actual agreement
statements made in the presence of
Others no not constitute promise of
marriage, and if made pursuant to
mutual understanding are not to be
considered evidence. The admitted
improper relations between the plain
tiff and the defendant and his support
OF her are not to be considered evil
dence of an engagement. The burden
of proof of the engagement rests on the
plaintiff. The defendant having been
married on April 90, 1898, any agree
ment 10 marry the plaintiff thereafter
Is void, If the Jury fluid that a con-