Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1894-04-08

WAsHINsToSF D. c., April The pros
poets Of a dry legal argument IN the Pol
lard Breckenridge case did not prove sum-
cientiy attractive TO draw out even the
members Of the bar 70 Judge Bradley's
court this morning. Neither Of the prin-
cipals ia the case was there. although their
lawyers bristled with legal documents
when they entered, while in their wake
followed sundry cOlored porters laden with
stacks OF C alf bound volumes.
The proceedings were begun BY Mr.
Calderon Carlisle, who read TO the Court
the prayer Of the plaintiff for instructions
90 the jury. Fourteen distinct instruc-
tious, covering every possible aspect Of
the case, were asked Of the Court. Strip
ped Of their legal vsrbiage, the substance
of the instructions asked for are As fol-
lows:
That this IS suit for breach OF promise
Of marriage, and II the Jury hnd from the
evidence tnat there were mutual promises
Of marriage between the plaintiff and tho
defendant, II the defendant was married
thereafter it constitutes breach OF prom
lss. II the plaintiff and defendant were
found 20 have
HAD ILLICIT INTIMACY
before the promise Of marriage that would
constitute no defense, and II she had Illicit
intercourse with others and he knew IL be-
fore he made the promise, 10 was not de-
fe1se. The burden OF proof that there was
10 20 a sembance of a marriage contract
with an understanding that there was not
20 be contract carried out rested upon
the defendant and the jury must be con-
vuced bv prepOnderance Of the evidence
ald such was the fact. The
ilrv must find for the plaintiff
unless they fad that there was q mutual
agreement not 20 carry out the semblance
Of "a contract and ind 10 0y preponder-
auce Of evidence. Also unless tney ma
that the plaintiff did not accept the prom
lse from the defendant and knew AZ the
tius that they were not made IN good
fs-tn. but agreed with him that they
should not bs binding, and this must be
shown bv prepouderGnce Of evidence. II
he made the promise 20 marry IN bad fdltn
ana she accepted 10 In good faith, no de-
fense was constituted thereby. In deter
mining whether she understood the con
tract M be lu good faith. the conduct OF
p'afutif and defendant az and after the
time of making the contract are 70 oe con-
gidsred Ifthe promises are found 70 have
been repeated bv him before Mrs. Black
burn and Major Moore, the fact or secret
understanding must Oe proved Ov pre-
pouderauce of the evidence and the fact OF
CAaNAL KNOWLEDGE BETWEEN
the two il, not "a defense. IL the Jury be-
Fsve the plaintiff 70 be unCusste and that
the defendant knew Of her unChaStity, that
uuchastitv does not constitute defense.
Ifthe 1ury believes sue tOld him that she
had been intimate with Rhodes and there
after be promised 90 marry her, that lntl-
macy does not form q Justification for
breach of contract The secret marrleg9
to another after promises 20 marry made
before other does not constitute defense
but aggravatiOn of damages That it he
was married April 20 kept that marriage
a secret and thereafter entered into the
contract. that marriage is not defense.
The Jury are 20 consider all the relations
of Tie parties the prospective improve
reut ia her circumstances oy the promised
marriage. the circumstances or the VIOLA
ton of contract and the wrong committed,
and NAV give exemplary damages. An
n0uncemeuts Of the coutrac- 70 thlru par
r.es. with the additional humiliation 70 the
rIaintiT. which it's breach under these cir
cumsrarces constitutes, may 0e considered
an pccravatiOn of damages. The ability or
insbintv of the defendant 20 paw cannot oe
,,,sldered a mitigating Circumstance IN
awarding damages. III the jury nnds the
r,aintlT was chaste, save the defendant
and that attempt 90 impeacn ner character
was not made in good faith, cut 70 conlrlve
8 defense. they are % consider the TACT as
an aggravati0n Of the damages
TIE PRAYERS OF TIE DEFENSE
s-. ,-s,,.,lt,ons which were read bv Mr.
SHELBY were fewer iu number. Ihey were
in substance as to-oFS;
BEFORE the plaiutifCan recover damages,
the iurv must believe that contract was
entered into between the plaintiff and de-
fendant. ov which they agreed 70 become
husband aud wife. III there was no actual
agreement statements made IN tue pres
ence of others do notconsutute promise
of marriage and n made pursuant 70 a
mutual understanding are not 20 be
considered evidence. The admitted i'm
DroDer relations between the plaintiff and
ne defendant aud his support OF her are
NOT TO be considered evidence OF an engage
rent. The burden Of proof Of the engage
mani rests on the plaintiff. The defendant
baving been married on April %, 1893
an agreement 10 marry made
thereafter IS void. III the jury ma tnat
q contract 70 marry was entered
INTO. anu M LutF AuA AA@A @~-A.'~ ~--e+N -t-N
p'aintif was guilty OF lasciviOus conduct
vrith other men, such afact being unknown
.r the defendant he was oy 70. released
from his obligation 70 carry out the con-
tract ard this is so whether az the time or
his refusal he knew OF such conduct or
not If the Jury md that there was con-
tract To marry and the plainuu, 0y threats
or conduct, made the defendant believe
bis
LIFE WAS N DANGER FROM HER,
he is excused from fulfilling the contract
If the Jury believe that there was a con-
tract, but find that the plainun was not
without fault with other men, the verdict
should De for the defendant, even Il he
knew Of her fault
The first argument for the plaintiff was
lde bv Attorney W. @. Johnson, and Mr..
beiby followed with the opening argu-
~ ent for the defense.
Turing the argument Of Attorney Shelby
ge Bradley inquired the meaning OF
vd and lasciviOus conduct, the term
D in the prayers OF the defense. Mr..
nelbV responded that no man was bound
TO marry a woman Of unchaste life, nor
one whose conduct was such that she
might be presumed 20 be willing 70 CON-
nit acts Of Illicit intercourse If the OppOr-
tunity was offered.
''NA6uld you mean such conduct as Mr.
Julian testified toli' the Judge inquired.
yes, responded Mr.. Shelby, u should.