Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-04-08
'PBAYER OF THE PLAINTIFF.
AacuMENTs BEcuN IN TIE GREAT
SCANDAL.


~. the members of the bar 10 Judge
hem nfndleys court this morning Neither
|pn, * nc principals We're there, although
h dltheir lawyers bristled with legal docu-
" mci1ts when they entered, while in
L nfheir wake followed sundry colored
porter. laden with stacks OF calf
klin bound books. The proceedings We're
begun by Mr. Calderon Carlisle, who
|usIn read TO the court the prayer OF the
plaintiff for instructions to the jury.
Idlll Fourteen distinct instructions, cover
II. ing merry possible aspect OF the case.
|DUl1 were asked OF the court. Stripped OF
Il :. the iegal verbiage, the substance Of
VIn tile Instructions asked for are as fol-
lows:
That this is a suit for breach of
|---proinise OF marriage, and IL the jury
NM nnd from the evidence that there were
Ill tnutuhl promises Of marriage between
the plaintiff and the defendant, II the
Defending was married thereafter, It
i, constitutes breach OF promise. If
the plaintln and defendant were found
to have had illicit Intimacy before the
h. promise OF marriage that would consti-
P0Mtute no defense and If she had Illicit
intercourse with others and he knew
W. before he made the promise it was
IL not a defense. The burden OF proof
|sra, that there was n senohlopoa of n mar
Marriage contract with the understanding
blew athat there was not to no a oortract
wgacarried out. rested upon the defendant
t. and he Jury must be convinced bv n
|nts REPRESENTATIVES, OF the evidence mai
cout such was the fact. The iu,.v must
eat find for the plaintiff unless they find
that there was mutual agreement
sursi not % carry out the semblance Of a
peig CONTRACT, and find It by preponder-
Mance OF evidence. Also unless they
6ns. nnq that the plaintiff did not accept the
promises from the defendant and knew
eais4 ~ .he uhe mat they We're made in
,r,- spou taith' but agreed with him that
Nom 'ney should not be binding, and this
NtAs lnus' oe SHOWN by preponderance of
|il ss'as"oe'
l''iA II Pc made the promise to marry in
bad faith and she accepted It In good
D. foith. no defense was constituted there
ns 5gs by. IN determining whether she under
stood the contract to be in good faith
Ina me conduct OF the plaintiff and defend
lV' ant p and after the time of making
|ax,, the Contract Is to be considered. II
the promises are found to have been
repeated by him before Mrs. Black
ny n NV" anu MAJOR Moore the fact Of a Sc
II ~ ivy su''uers'ahd'ng must be proved by
Asns Z ttepohufrah'e OF the evidence. and
~ W .,'e iue' Oh earhal knowledge between
sasi 's w Two IS moi defense II the Jury
|tsaf SeVe me plaihtim to be unchaste
NY ~. ~ ,ne ueiehdant Knew OF her I'M
az ',pe. that does not constitute a
lIua VIZ !. 'he jury believe that she
pel9l ~. r,,' tnat she mad been Intimate
ss WI i'houes' ana thereafter he prom
| d Il 'sso " marry her that Intimacy does
a sAs'o' torin a Jusuheation for breach OF
gu se'lseee me secret marriage after
~, W. s'o'''ises TO marry and before others
|aaan& 80 lio' constitute defense, but an
cv easssHNatlo OF damages. That II he
ualu WIS married April 49, kept that mar