Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1894-04-10

WASHINGTON. D. c.. April 9.-Attor-
ney Calderson Carlisle, who is more
deeply versed in international law than
in breach Of promise lrtigations, con-
sumsd to-day in the Criminal Court in a
review of the testimony before the jury
in the Pollard -Breckinridge case.
His statement was detailed dissec-
tion of the evidence, delivered in a
clear, dispassionate manner, although
at times the lawyer referred TO Colonel
Breckenridge in very scathing but coolly
worded terms. The silver-haired Con-
gresham conducted himself very
nonchalently, joking with his
lawyers during the day, while
Madeline Pollard, sitting direct
ly in front of him kept her face
shaded by a black gloved hand most Of
the time. Only once was there any in
tsrruption OF the argument, and that
was when Colonel Breckinridge set the
speaker right on the point of family
title, about which he seemed to be
ather particular. All day the closest
attention was given to the speech by
Jury and spectators, so that there was
a deep silence In the court room. Mr..
Carlisle will continue tomorrow, and 1t
is not impossible that the speaking will
last until Friday. There was counter
attraction to-day In the arraignment Of
BIGANIIsT OF LOCAL CELEBRITY,
so that the groups of curious women
hanging about the court house were
largely reinforced.
Madeline Pollard wore her most becom-
ing bonnet when she entered the circuit
court, accompanied by Sister Ellis and
her counsel, to-day. She took her
usual chair before the Judge, her pro-
file to the jury.
Judge Bradley first announced his
decision Of the prayers for instructions.
Nine prayers OF the plaintiff were
granted In modified form and five OF
them refused. Six prayers for the de-
fendent we're granted in modified form
or subs titutes granted and five were re-
fused. Incidentally the Judge said
that while the burden Of proof rested
on the plaintiff TO show that contract
TO marry was entered into, II the de-
fendant 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 contract was
not to be carried out, but that the state
ments made in the presence OF other
parties were made with the understand
ing on the part of the plaintiff and de-
fendant.
The Judge was anxious to limit the
time for argument to FIVE hours on each
side, but after both sides had protested
against q time limit he yielded the
point.
The instructions granted in condensed
form are as follows;
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PLAINTIFF,
l. II the jury find from the evidence
that there were mutual promises OF
marriage, as claimed in the declaration,
that would constitute q binding con-
tract aud II the defendant married an
other person that would be breach Of
the contract upon which the plaintiff
would be entitled to sue. Illicit rela-
tions with him, or with others before
the contract was made, il known to him,
would be no defense.
2. The burden of proof is upon the
defendant to show by preponderance
OF evidence. that there was an agree
ment that the mere semblance OF a con-
tract not be carried out was agreed up
on between them.
3. If promises were made by the de-
fendant in bad faith but accepted by
the plaintiff in good faith, this bad
faith on his part would not constitute
defense.
4. The conduct of plaintiff and de-
| fendant at, about and after the making
of the contract are TO be considered In
| Judging It's good or bad faith.
S. II the jury find that the defendant
promised the plaintiff in good faith to
marry her
THE BURDEN OF PROOF
rests upon him to establish by a pre-
ponderance of proof, defense or re-
| lease, and it would be q defense that be
had Illicit relations with her or she told
him OF Illicit relations with others.
6. If before the contract there was
intercourse between the two and the de-
fendant knew that she was previously
unchaste, 1t constitutes no defense.
:. II she informed him that she had
been impure with Rhodes, that consti-
| tutes no defense.
S. The secret marriage does not con-
stltute a defense.
| 9. II promises were not made until
after the secret marriage, IL does not
constitute defense.
10. II the jury find for the plaintiff
thew are to consider the prospective sd'
vantage to the plaintiff from the mar
riage, the injury to her feelings, reputa.
tion and chance Of earning livelihood
by the breach of promise and may
award exemplary damages as well.
IL. II the jury find that the plaintiff
was ehaste save with the defendant
aud that the attempt to impeach hel
character was made for the purpose oi
defense, they may consider the fact
In awarding damages
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DEFENSE
/. Before the plaintiff can recover
| tha furv must believe from al she oVi