Arizona weekly citizen., 1894-04-14
TELEGRApHIC.

destroyed Dy nre To-Day, WnlcE 0rOEo OUT
between four and five o'clock this morn
ing. All the valuable scenery carried
by the Lilliputlans, worth $4,000, is
totally destroyed. The theater roof, on
which a score or more firemen stood,
went down and the men were carried
with it. Some were rescued from the
flames by their comrades, who risked
their own lives to drag out the forms OF
the dead and injured. Seven or eight
men were brought out and those able to
speak said that there must be ten more
in the ruins. The burning roof had fall
len on them and they were roasted to
death if not killed in plunging from the
roof. Several men who were working IN
the theater were caught by falling tim
bers and other portions of the roof,
which made the rescue Of the impison-
ed men impossible.
MILWAUKEE, April 9.-The police re-
port that sixteen lives were lost. John
Gee, who went down with the roof was
pinned down with bricks, but slipped
out of his clothing and esca ped, thsugh
badly bruised and bnrned.
William Crowley was pinned down
by thu fire for several hours and his
friends we're hesitating between letting
him burn or letting him drown. Crow
ley asked friends of his to cut his legs
of so that he could be released, but he
| was finally rescued. The fireuen were
not Oh the roof when it fell bui on the
| floor beneath it. The origin of the fire
| is unknown.
The loss to the Lilliputian company
is 100000, and the theatre about $780,
600.
Boston, Mass, April 9.-The bark
| belmont, Of Boston, is ashore off
| Chatham. Six of his crew are reported
| lost.
FRESNO, CAL, April 9.-The Hath
| jury is reported to stand 10 to 2. but it
not known which way. The jury we're
sent back by Judge Shaw for further
| deliberation.
CoNNELLsvILrE E, Pa, April 9.-Nearly
all works closed down by the strikers
have resumed operations and everything
| is peaceful. The operators, however,
| fear the ominous silence. The strikers
are assembling in the vicinity OF rrotter
and Leisinrlng ostensibly for meet
| ing, but the impression prevails that
they are contemplating an ATTACK.
WASHINGTON, April THE prospect
for day Of legal argument in the Pol
MISUNDERSTANDING case failed to draw
out even the members OF the bar to-
day. Neither of the principals wee in
court. Carlderon Carlisle asked for
fourteen instructions to the jury COW
ering every possible aspect of the case.
The substance OF the instructions
asked for by Carlisle is as follows:
Ii the jury finds that there were mu-
tual promises of marriage between the
plaintiff ard defendant, and if the de-
PENDANT married thereafter, it consti-
tutes breach of promise. IL the
plaintiff and defendant were found TO
have had illicit intimacy before the
promise, that would constitute no de-
Tense, and if she had illicit intercourse
with others, and he knew it before he
made the promise. If is not n dofense.
From the burden of proof that there
was to be emblgnce of a marriage
contract, with the understanding the
contract would not be carried out rest
ed upon defendant and the jury must
be Convinced by the preponderance of
evidence such was a fact.
The jury must find for the Plaintiff
unless they find that there was a mu-
tual agreement not to carry out the
semblance OF the contract Also un-
less they find tho plaintiff did not &C
cept promises from the defendant and
knew at the time they had not been
made In good faith, but agreed with
him that they we're not to be binding,
and this must be shown by the pre-
ponderance of evidence. II he made a
promise to mary in good faith and he
accepted it in good faith, no defense
was constituted thereby.
The conduct of the plaintiff and de-
PENDANT after making the contract is
to be considered. If the promises are
found to have been repeated by him |
before Mrs. Blackburn and Major |
Moore, the fact of secret understand |
ing must be proved by the preponder-
ance OF evidence, and the fact of a |
carnal knowledge between the two is |
not defense. Ii the jury believed the |
plaintiff TO be unchaste and the de- |
PENDANT knew Of her unchastity, that |
unchastity did not constitute a de- |
Tense. If the jury believes she told |
him she had been intimate with Rhodes |
and thereafter promised marriage, that |
intimacy does net form q justification
for breach of contract.
secret marriage to another after
the same promises to marry and before
others, does not constitute defense.
but an aggravation of damages. That
it ne was married April %, kept that
marriage secret and thereafter en-
tered into contract, that marriage
was not defense. The jury are to
consider all the relations of the parties,
improvement in her cir
cumstances, promised marriage, cir
OF the violation of contract
ana wrong committed, and may give
damages. Announcement
Of the contract to third parties, with
additional humiliation to plaintiff.
which its breach under these circum-
stances constitute, may be considered
In aggravation of damages. /
The ability or inability OF the defend
ant to pay cannot be considered as miti-
eating circumstances in awarding dam
ages. If the jury finds the plaintiff was
,haste, save with defendant, and that
attempts to imDeach her character made
not in good faith, but to contrive de-
ense, they are TO consider that fact as
an Rggravation of damages.
The prayers of the defense for instruc-
ions were fewer. In substance they
'ead as follows:
Before plaintiff recover damages. the
ury must believe that a contract WIS
entered into between plaintiff and de-
endant by which they agreed to become
husband and wife. If no actual agree