Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-04-10
OPENING ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Carlisle Speaks for Plaintiff In the
Pollard Case.
THE TESTIM0NYS ANALYZED.
Claim Against Breckinridge and the Facts
to support It-Prnyer. Granted
and Prayers Denied.

-. ,,.,rosentatiye. Breckinridge began.
,. =, ,rohohIe the talk viii consume most.
!, ,o, all OF this week. Judge Bradley
,.d,oa,od a nurpose TO put limit OF time
,,,.o, Zach side but. in response TO an ear
nest appeaI from both Sues tnis ihorniis
decided not TO impose any such limit Dut
,,,,s, 20 the lawyers themselves not TO
unnecessarily consume tHhe.
Tho Indpe this morning announced his
,oa,s,on G Granting. refusing. or modifying
A. .rn,,ors submitted Saturday by the
attorneys on each side. Immediately
of,erward Mr.. Carlisle began the opening
ARGUMENT for the plaintn and gave pro-
49,, %, taking the whole day for his part
=, ,ha oratoricaI display which Is to close
a., celebrated case. He will be followed
IN order by Mr.. Phil. Thompson and Mr.
r...,.,,,,or,t for the defence. and Mr.. Jere
U,i,e,r for the plaintiff. The Judge, when
" W heroes the Jury VIII have the last
word. Both plaintiff ana defendant were
M ~ rreckinridge followed Mr.. Carlisle's
..',,srt,s closely. and Miss Pollard al times
ionIIed her approval There was 2 large
audience I'm the courtroom, Which seeueu
deenlv interested also In this summing up
of the details Of the case. The jury, whlch
=, g. ~ ,,o,, been sitting a month and has
t,oard testimony enough 10 fill library
- ,oo,,od in crested, for Mr.. Carlisle )
rd,,;a,y enabled them TO 80 back over the
aosa and rick m missing threads. If any
80 roIssinp. Mr.. Carlisle devoted the
morning TO reviewing that part OF the case
hearing upon the conduct and reputation
NJ the plaintiff before her meeting WIN
MIR Breckinridgs. He examined the tesll-
nonv offered by the defence, anu this CON
rcction showed what had peeh oHeIeu "
,,,os, n asserted that it had been tully
not and that the jury could not believe
ntberu,ise than that Miss Pollard when she
mot Mr. Breckinridge was an innocent
and inexperienced girl
Mr. Carlisle attempted no rhetorical en-
bellishments but simply made narrative
ont of the testimony. stopping at times 10
analvze and compare, where there were
discrepancies between the statements
maintained by the defence ana those maze
in behalf OF the plaintit' lie are"
uord-nicture of the defendant as ne was
rben he met the plaintiff. and gave the
iurv a tintvpe OF the witness taken about
,ba came time as the girl upon whom he
satd the defendant sought 10 put more
nan half of the burden Of the wrong they
committed.
II-DGE BRADLEY ON THE PRAYERS.
Ato,,t 1890 o'clock. after the jury FOR
tho neE term had been secured anu eN'
cused until Wednesday morning, judge
pradlcv took up the matter Of the IN
structions To the jury. lhe prayers Ior
instructions asked for by both SIDES "er'
presented to the Court SATURDAY morning
and argued by the lawyers. Judge bTdH'
lav made no announcement OF ms de-
e
All NOT consider that the secret marriage
of tho defendant should be regarded as
,,Ia,ino any part with the jury in their
decision as 10 the merits of the case.
The substance OF the prayers submitted
bv the lawyers was printed sunday. oi
these a number were ruled out py ue
iuige The others were allowed, either a'
they were submitted. or In modified form.
The instructions asked for by the plain,
ti0 as finally amended and allowed by
Judge Bradley this morning, were as fol'
lows.
The fury are instructed that this is an
act for a breach Of contract Tor mar
riare. II the jury find from the evidence
that there were mutual promises OF mar
riaga "a claimed in the declaration, that.
would constitute a breach Of contract
And the Jury are further instructed that
IT, after such contract was made, the de-
fandant married another person, that
would be- breach Of the contract, and
the plaintiff would be entitled 10 recover;
and il would be no defence to this action
that he had had improper relations with
the plaintiff before or after such con-
tract: nor would it be- "A defence that she
had improper intercourse with another
rorson. if such were the fact, before shs
had such intercourse with him. If he knew
th. fact at the time of making the con-
tract.
The Jury are instructed that If they be
lieve from the evidence that the defend
ant made any Of the alleged promises
of marriage In bad faith. not intending
to keep the same. and further fnd that
the plaintiff understood and accepted such
promises in good faith, and agreed 10
marry the defendant. the bad faith OF the
defendant is no defence in this action.
In Determining whether the plaintiff in
good faith understood and believed the
defendant To be sincere in his promise TO
marry her. or whether she understood ana
agreed that the said promises were not to
be kept by the defendant the jury are
to consider the condition of the piaintlH
at the time and since and also the con-
duet OF the defendant at about ana after
the time OF such promise
If the Jury find from the evidence that
the defendant promised to marry the
plaintir. and that the plaintiff accepted
these promises in good faith and pro-
nised IN marry the defendant. then the
burden of the proof is upon the defendant
10 establish by a preponderance OF EVIL
dence any defence TO or release from any
such promise. and II would not De de-
fence If he had had Illicit relations with
her before or after such promise. or that
ne had been informed by her prior to said
promjse that she had had improper rea-
lions with another.
The defendant, having asserted that ne
had had improper relations with the
pIaintiff before the making Of the alleged
promise to marry. and having asserted
that he knew She was not free from fault
at the time OF his first intercourse with
her. the Jury are instructed that. even
If thev believe from the evidence that
the plaintiff was not chaste before such
intercourse with the defendant. and that
he knew of such previous unchastity.
such facts would not justify verdict for
the defendant if the jury believe that the
contract of marriage was therefore maze.
II the iurv find from the evidence that
the plaintiff did tell the Defendant. as he
states. that She had been imprudent with
James G. Rodes. and thereafter. ana.
after the death OF his wite, ne promise"
10 marry the plaintiff, and she him. the
fact that she had Informed hlm that she
had had improper relations with the SAID
Rodes would not affect the validity or
his contract of marriage. or further justi-
~ the refusal 10 keep said promise.
AS TO DAMAGES.
II the iurv find from the evidence that
tho defendant was married on the 18th
dav of April. 1893; that he kept. and
caused 10 be kept that marriage secret
thereaf fter. and that without disclosing
tho fact of that marriage he promised 10
marry the plaintiff, or repeated or aVowea
a nreviously made engagement or mar
riage with her, such secret marriage
would be no defence TO this action.
The Jury are instructed that II they
find for the plaintiff In estimating the
damages they are TO consider all the facts
in evidence as to the relations between
the parties up to the breaking OF the
promise, the prospective pecuniary ana
social advantages TO the plaintih from
such marriage the injury to the PLAIN
tin's feelings and reputation by its VIOLA
lion the manner and circumstances OF
its violation, and the suffering of the
nlaintiff caused thereby, and its effects
upon her means of earning a livelihood
in the future; and the jury are also TO
take into consideration the wrong COM
mi,ted by the defendant and may award
exemplary damages as well.
II the Jury find for the plaintiff, and
they further find that the plaintiff was
free from fault. save with the defendant: