Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1894-04-09
THE INSTRUCTIONS
Asked for by Miss Madeline Pollard's
Counsel at Washington.
They Number i4-Rgs Few So csaicrs Pres
est 10 Fear Tftn.

WAsiHScTo,i, April s.-The prospects of
dry legti argument in The Pollard
Ire, kinridg.s case did nc. prove suf-
EsIrntly attractive to draw out even the
nienbrrs OF the bar 10 Judge Bradley 5
coart Saturday morning Neither OF the
principals in the case was there. although
their lawyers brissled with legal docu-
nIents when they entered, while in their
wake followed sundry colored porters
laden with stacks OF calf bound volumes.
The proceedings were begun by Cal
derOn Carlisle, who read to the court the
prayers OF the plaintiff for instructions to
the jury. Fourteen distinct instructions.
covering every possible aspect of the case,
were asked of the court. Stripped of
their legal verbiage the substance of the
instructions asked ftIr is as follows:
That this is a suit for breach of promise
o. marriage, and If the jury find from the
evidence thai there were mutual prom
ises OF marriage between the plaintiff and
the defendant, If the defendant was mar
RED thereafter, it constitutes breach of
promise II the plaintiff and defendant
were found to have had Illicit intimacy
before tht promise OF marriage, that
would constitute no defense. and if she
had Illicit intercourse with others ana he
knew it before he made the promise,
It Was No Defense
The burden of proof that there was TO
be q semblance of IA marriage contract
with an understanding that there was not
to be contract carried out, rested upon
the defendant. and the jury must be con-
yinced by a prepOnderance OF the eyi-
dtnce that such was the fact.
The jury must find for the plaintiff
unless they find that there was mutual
agreement not to carry out the sem blance
OF Il contract and find it by preponder-
anee Of evidence. Also. unless they find
that the plaintiff did not accept the prom
!=es from the defendant and knew at the
time that they wer. not made in good
faith. as agreed with him that they
should not be binding, and this must be
shown by prepouderance of evidence. Ii
he made the promise to marry in had
faith and she accepted it in good faith no
defense was constituted thereby.
In determining whether she understood
the contract to b. in good faith, the con-
duct of the ptaint Il and defendant at and
after the time Of making the contract are
to be considered. If the promises are
found to have been repeated by him be-
fore Mrs. Blackburn and Major Moore,
the fact of . secret understanding must
be proved by preponderanca OF the evil
dence and the fact of carnal knowledge
between the two is not defense.
& the jury believe the plaintiff to be
unchaste and that the defendant knew of
l,... IL, -. H.,
constitute a defense. II the jury believes
she told him that she had been intimate
with Rhodes and thereafter he promised
to marry her. that intimacy does not
form a justification for breach of con-
tract. The marriage to another after
promises to marry and before others does
not constitute Il defense, but
An iggravation of Damages.
That, II he was married April %, kept
that marriage secret, and thereafter ell
tered into the contract, that marriage is
rot II defense. The jury are to consider
all the relations of the parties. the pros
pcctlVe improvements in her circum-
stances by the promised marriage. the
circumstances of the violation of contract,
and the wrCEg committed and may give
exemplary damages.
Announcements of the contract to third
parties, with the additional humiliation
to the plaintiff, which its breach under
those circumstances constitutes, may be
considered an aCgravation of damages.
The ability Or inability of the defendant
to pay cannot be considered mitigating
circumstance in awarding damages. IL
the jury finds that the plaintiff was
chaste. save the defendant. and that at
tempt to ilnpeach her character was made
not in good faith, but to coutrive n de-
fen>r. they are to consider the fact IS an
nE@rayatiou Of damages.