The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1894-04-08

PRAYERS ssr 1sst-u<ssss - ,hs sury Rs.1
saA AFes.sats 49, Thsr...

go Ars.-.ats Nsss TRsrss-.
WAsH1SoroS. April L-M II O'Clock THE
morning Mr.. Caldsron Carlisle began to read
In Judge Brsdley's court the prayers on behalf
OF the plaintiff In the Pollard BreckinridRe
suit Major Shelby followed with prayers for
the defendant. and then argument was en-
tered upon. There we're few spectators. ard
very little interest was manifested IN this
purely technical phase Of the case. Neither
Miss Pollard nor Col Breckenridge was pres
ent when the hearing began. but Col Breckln-
ridge came In afterwsrd.
The instructions which Mr.. Carlisle ask ed
the Court to give 10 the iury in behalf OF the
plaintiff set forth that the promise given was
such A. to constitute . binding contract: that
the plaintiff had married no one and had con-
mitted no breach Of that contract, and that
even II the assertions made we're true (which
was denied) as to relations sustained by the
plaintiff with other men. this would not In
validate the contract.
That the defendants contention that the
agreement OF marriage between himself and
the plaintiff was not intended TO be kept but
was entered into for purposes OF deception.
must be sustained By q preponderance Of evil
dence In order to have weight with the Jury.
That whether the defendant promised mar
rage to the plaintiff in good faith or not has
no effect on the plaintiffs claim. as she re-
ceived the promise in good faith and per-
formed her part Of the agreement.
That 10 the jury End that tho defendsn was
secretly married on the 10Th OF April last. and
thereafter made promise to marry the plain
till. and By his breach OF contract so made the
plaintiff has been injured pecuniarily. socially.
ing q livelihood In the future. the jury must
bring In q verdict for DAMAGES, and the ability
does not stest the pisintiif right to sue.
,.MSd.ot sh Hsy read the PRAYERS ioT Inc de-
must agree that the niaintir and the defend:
ant entered Into contract to become husband
msnt to marry. then no stateme nts in the pres
ence OF others can be taken as contract OF
were made pursuant to an understanding Tor
other purposes
That ss imp.opsr relation. ,t bad existed b.
o. proof was on the plaintiff to show tina, I'm
That, as. the defendant was married to his
to marrJ after that date was void.
That even Il the Jury find that contract to
consideIation whether the pisintiff had been
guilty OF lasciyious relations with other men
70 The Ia whsn hs ,SSorss
defendant had the right to break the contract
on attaining such knowledge.
defendant to force him to promise to marry
her, then the jury must find for the defendant
That IL they find that = contract existed. and
that after the making OF the contract the
plaintiff. By making threats on his life. placed
the defendant In q state oftsrror. such acts sx-
cused the defendant from Q marriage.
In the argument that followed: Mr.. william
that he did not need to discuss the point that
the defendant had the right to break the
promise to marry II he knew the plaintiff was
unchaste. for he had testified that she told him
she was unchsste before his i'm me oral rela-
lions with her began. aad therefore the prom
ise was made with his full understanding OF
her previous character. and that ne need not
chastity by the plaintiff subsequent to the al
legged promise. as no such claim had been made.
Judge Bradley agreed that these points did
not enter into the case. for the reasons given
by Mr.. Johnson II Was contended that the
Jury should. In considering the amount OF
damages. consular WHISTLER the alleged en-
gagement was broken IN brutal or otherwise
that the defenu ant was forced into the con-
tract BIZ fear OF the plaintiff. made desperate
BY the condition to which he had brought her.
then the jury should take into consideration
that fact and award damages to the plainiin
for having been brought to such condition By
Mr.. johnson was followed By Major Shelby
favor OF his prayers When Major Shelby con-
eluded. Judge Wilson argued for the plaintiff
The N ain issue discussed IN the Arguments Of
Major Shelby and Judge Wilson was a. to
proof in regard to the conflicting statsments
OF the plaintiff and defendant. Judge Wilson
concluded at 2:I5. whom the court adjourned
till Monday.