The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-04-08

Washington, April THE prospect
of dry legal argument in the Pol
lard Breckenridge case did not prove
sufficiently attractive to draw out even
members of the bar.
Neither principal was there, al
though their lawyers bristled with le-
gal documents, while in their wake fol-
lowed sundry colored porters, laden
with stacks of bound volumes.
The proceedings were begun by Mr..
Carlisle In the prayer of the plaintiff
for instructions to the jury, fourteen
distinct instructions, covering every
feature of the case, were asked of the
court. Stripped of their legal Verbiage,
the substance of the instructions asked
! for were as follows:
! That this is suit of breach of prom
Use of marriage, and if the jury finds
! by evidence that there were mutual
promises of marriage between the
plaintiff and the defendant, and il the
defendant were married thereafter, it
constitutes a breach of promise.
If plaintiff and defendant were
found to have had illicit intimacy be-
fore the promise of marriage, that
! would constitute no defense, and if
the plaintiff had Illicit intercourse with
fore he made the promise, it was no
defense
The burden of proof that there was
to be a semblance of a, marriage con-
tract, with the understanding that
there was not to be a contract carried
out, rested upon the defendant, and
the jury must be convinced by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence that such
was the fact,
The jury must find for the plaintiff,
unless they find that there was a mu-
tual agreement not to carry out the
semblance of a contract, and to find it
by preponderance of the evidence.
The conduct of the plaintiff and the
defendant after the making of the
contract was to be considered.
If the promises are found to have
been repeated by him before Mrs.
Blackburn and Major Moore, the fact
OF secret understanding must be
proved by preponderance of evil
dence and the fact of carnal knowl-
edge between the two is not a defense
The secret marriage to another after
the same promises to marry and before
, others does not constitute a defense,
!, but an aggravation of dana ges.
If the jury finds the plaintiff was
chaste, save with the defendant, and
; that the attempts to impeach her char
tacter made not in good faith, but to
! contriVe defense, they are to con-
slider the fact as aggravation of dam
ages.
The Defendants Prayers.
The prayers of the defense for in
structions, which were read by Mr..
f Shelby, were fewer in number. They
! were, in substance, as follows:
+ Before the plaintiff can recover dam
t ages, the jury must believe that a
: contract was entered into between the
/ plaintiff and defendant, by which they
= agreed to become husband and wife II
D there was no actual agreement, the
' statements made in the presence OF
E others do not constitute a. promise OF
marriage, and if made pursuant to a
mutual understanding are not to be
considered evidence. The admitted i'm.
proper relations between the plaintiff
and the defendant, and his support OF
her, are not to be considered evidence
of an agreement of marriage.
= The burden of proof of the engage
4 ment rests on the plaintiff
a The defendant having been married
? on April 20, SO, an agreement made tC
2 marry thereafter is void
: If the jury finds that a contract t.
+ marry was entered into and if they
q further believe that the plaintiff wa:
: guilty OF lascivious conduct with Other
: men, such a fact being unknown to de
n PENDANT, he was by it released from hi!
: obligation to carry out the contract
and this is so whether at the time O.
. his refusal he know of such conduct OF
: not. If the jury find that there was
: contract to marry, and the plaintiff, b,
s threats or conduct, made the defendan
Il believe his life was in danger from her
he was excused from fulfilling the con
: tract If the jury believe that there
II was contract, but find that the plain
: tiff was not without fault with othe
men. the verdict should be for the de
= fonda Mt If he Of I,or 60
The first argument for the plain
tiff was made by Attorney w. G.. John
son and Mr.. Shelby followed with tn
d opening argument for the defense.
g Attorneys Have Clash.
# During the argument of Attorne,
Shelby, Judge Bradley inquired tn
:, meaning of 'lewd and lascivious con
II duct the terms used in the prayer
of the defense.
n Mr.. Shelby responded that no MAJ
u was bound to marry woman of un
l. chaste life, nor one whose conduct wa
20 such that she might be presumed +
$ be willing to commit the act of illici
y intercourse if the opportunity was of
n fered.
lie would you mean such conduct a
J. Mr.. Julian testified to-" the judge in
t quired.
Yes" responded Mr. Shelby.
Is do You think a person of tina
h character only needed an opportunit
y to commit acts of unchastity? sur
lie pose that he knew of such conduC
10 with five parties and the knowlede
s. of it with a sixth afterwards came t
o, him. Would that change the legal as
4 pect of the case?" asked the judge.
st Mr.. Shelby replied that he woui
is not go to that extreme; that the1
might be such conduct long passe
and atoned for and repented of.
There was a little passage batwee
he Mr. Shelby and Mr.. Wilson regardin
g the part which Miss Pollards threat
Or should play in The case.
h. Mr.. Shelby said threats which weul
in justify man in securing a divorC
u would also justify him in breaking
n contract to marry
Of Mr.. Wilson contended that this ri
ID would not apply in the case, becaul
e, of the defendants misconduct, and b
d, Icause Of an exhibition by him of
A purpose TO evade the contract, and thi
a. no threats made after the secret ma
re l1iage could justify a ruling for the
III Ifendant.
The argument was closed by Mr.. w