The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1894-12-28
over that the plaintiff during all the

\ times mentioned in the complaint
was common prostitute and COM
mitted divers acts of fOrnicatiOn with
persons other than the defendant,
r and the defendant now only claims
: to defeat the plaintiffs cause of &C
tion on the grounds of plaintiffs mis-
conduct after the engagement of mar
J riage if such there ever was between
the parties, by proof of acts of un-
chastity and fOrnication done with
persons other than the defendant.
'The plaintiff claims and testitieS
herself that when she entered into an
engagement of marriage with the de-
PENDANT she expressly promised the
defendant that she would reform her
life and thereafter live chaSte and
virtuous life. This then she was
bound to do, and if instead of dis
charging that obligation and duty to
/ the defendant she committed an act
r. or acts of fornication with men other
: than the defendant and that is proved
by fair preponderance Of the evil
dence and you so find, then such acts
i and conduct on the part of the plaint-
n if instantly vitiated the marriage en-
; gagement if such there was existing
between the plaintiff and defendant,
and abSolved the defendant Saulpaugh
q from any obligation to carry out such
marriage contract on his part and on
!; the other happening of such act or
;, acts the defendant without any act
4 on his part would be entirely relieved
i, from the obligation of such marriage
,e, contract and would be at liberty to
marry any woman he should see ut.
u "But to prove the act or acts OF I'M
chastity in question, the burden is on
the defendant, Saulpaugh, by fair
prepOnderance of evidence, and no
presumption of any kind exists that
L the plaintiff lived an unchaSte life at
times previous to the engagement to
marry, if such there was between the
parties in this case. She continued
such life or course of conduct after
such contract of marriage, but the
presumption would be the other way,
and that she did not continue her I'M
chaste conduct, and hence the burden
rests on the defendant to prove by a
J fair prepOnderance of evidence that
the plaintiff, during the engagement
to marry between the plaintiff and
defendant. if such there was, COM
mitted such act or acts Of unchastity.
1.-THE character of plaintiff as to
, chastity when the engagement was
entered into, if such there ever was,
was we'll known to the defendant, and
he knew her to be person OF I'M
chaSte life, and twas competent even
under those circumstances for the
parties to enter into valid and bind
ing contract of marriage, and this en-
gagement might be broken and the
defendant abSolved from it's obliga-
tion by subsequent acts of unchaStity
on the part of the plaintiff and not
condoned by the defendant, but l in
struct you as the plaintiff claims and
testifieS, that subsequent to the en-
gagement to be married on which she
relies, if such there was, that no
question of condemnation of
the unchaste acts of the plain
tiff. if such there were, arises in
this case, for the plaintiff by her own
testimony excludes any such issue
from the case, and hence the question
of the condemnation of the unchaste
acts of the plaintiff, if such there
were, subsequent to the marriage en-
gagement, if such there was, is not
involved in this case at ALL
"And acts of unchaStity committed
by the plaintiff, if such there were,
subsequent to the marriage of the de-
PENDANT with Roma j. Allen, and her
unchaste character before such en-
gagement would be no bar to plaintiffs
cause of action and for all that she
might recover in this action, but the
character of the plaintiff before and
during the engagement Of marriage
with the defendant, if such there
was, and after such engagement and
ever since may properly be considered
by you on the question OF the mitiga-
tion of plaintiffs damages, should be
found entitled to recover in this &C
ton. 1t is only unchaSte acts on the
part of plaintiff during the engage
ment to marry this defendants that
would absolutely defeat recovery by
the plaintiff, if such engagement is
proved to have existed as claimed by
the plaintiff, but the character of the
plaintiff outside of this time may be
considered in mitigation of damages,
if it should affect them as to the
amount, even if such character was
known at the time to the defendant.
sit would be burdenSOme task for
me to GO through the evidence in de-
tail which was introduced by the de-
PENDANT, Saulpaugh, to prove unchaste
acts and fornication with men other
than himself during the time that the
plaintiff claims that the engagement
of marriage in question existed. The
and disgusting in circumstances, but
you are bound to examine and weigh
it all and give it such force and effect
as in your judgment you think it
ought to have, and if you find by fair
preponderance of the evidence in the
case that the plaintiff, Victoria A.
Stein, did during the engagement
with the defendant to marry, did COM
NIT an act or acts Of fornication with
I men other than the defendant, then
your verdict must be for the defend
ant, and so it must be if you find that
no promise of marriage existed be-
tween plaintiff and defendant.
''But if you find under the evidence
and instructions of the court that an
engagement between the plaintiff and
defendant to marry as claimed by the
plaintiff, and do not find that the de-
PENDANT was absolved from the obliga-
ton of such engagement by the I'M
chaste acts of the plaintiff in question
during the existence of such engage
ment, then your verdict must be for
the plaintiff, and for such amount of
damages as she shows herself entitled