The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1894-04-10

WAsuIsGroN, D. O., April 9.-NIade.
line Pollard wore her most becoming
bonnet whom sho entered the circuit
court accompanied by Sister Ellis and
her counsel to-day. She took her usual
chair before tho judge, her profile to
the jury.
Judge Bradley first announced his
decision of the prayers for instructions.
Nine prayers Of tho plaintiff wero
granted in modified form and five Of
them refused. sixprayers for the do.
fcndant woro granted in modified form
or substitutes granted and.dvo were 70.
fused. Incidentally the Judge said that
while the burden OF proof rested on
the plaintiff to show that contract to
marry was entered into, II tho defend.
ant set UP the deiense that tho contract
was not made in good faith, the burden
OF proof would rest upon him to show
that there was an understanding that
the contract was not to be carried out,
and that tho statements made in the
presence OF other parties were made
with the understanding on the part OF
the plaintiff and defendant.
The instructions granted, in con.
densed form, are rs follows:
THE INSTRUCTIONS.
For the plaintiff:
l. II the jury find from the evidence
that there were mutual promises OF
marriage, as claimed in the declaration,
that would constitute binding con.
tract, and il tho defendant married
another person that would be q breach
OF the contract upon which the plain
till would be entitled TO sue. Illicit re-
lations with him. or with others. before
the contract was made, il known to
him, would be no defense.
2. The burden OF proof Is upon tho
defendant to show, by preponderauce
OF evidence. that there was an agree
ment, that merely tho semblance OF a
contract not to be carried out was
agreed upon between them.
8. II promises were mado by the de.
fendant in bad faith, but accepted by
the plaintiff in good faith, this bad
faith on his part would not constitute n
defense.
4. Tho conduct OF plaintiff and de.
feudant at, about and attor the making
OF the contract are to be considered in
Judging its good or bad faith.
5. II the jury find that tho defendant
promised the plaintiff in good faith to
marry her, the burden OF proof rests
upon him to establish by a preponder-
ance OF proof defense or release, and
it would not be q defense that hc had
illicit relations witt, her or she told him
OF Illicit relations with others.
6. Ii before the contract there was in
tercourse between the two and the de-
tendant knew that she was previously
unchaste it constitutes no defense.
|, I. II sho informed him that she had
been impure with Rhodes, that consti.
tutes no defense.
s. The secret marriage does not con-
stitute defense.
O.. II promises were. not made until
alter the secret marriage it does not
constitute defense.
10. II tho jury find for the plaintiff
( they are to consider tho prospective
advantage to the plaintiff from the mar
riage, the iniuryt to her feelings, reputa.
ton and chance Of earning livelihood
by tho breach OF promise and may
award exemplary damages as we'll.
II. Ii the jury find that tho plaintiff
was chasto, save with tho defendant,
and that tho attempt to impeach her
character was made for the purpose OF n
defense, they may consider tho fact in
awarding damages.
Instructions for the defense:
l. Before tho plaintiff can recover,
the jury must believe from all the evi.
denco that n contract was entered into
between the plaintiff and defendant to
become husband and wife.
.. II tho jury find that statements
We're made In the presence OF, or to,
third parties that they were engaged to
be married and such statements were
mudo pursuant to an understanding ior
the purpose of deceiving third persons
such statements aro not TO be takeu rs
constituting or cvidenciug contract.
8. The burden of proof to establish
the contract is upon the plaintiff.
.IEs- I. IL p6AOIC ttlc CullElCL TIC DlulnLlll
was guilty oflewd or unchaste couduc,
with other men, unknown to the de.
fendant, he was not bound BY tho con.
tract and may avail himself OF such de,
Tense, whether at the time OF his refusal
he knew OF tho conduct or not.
s. ii the Jury believe that the plaintiff
was guilty OF unchaste conduct with
other men, being unknown to the de-
fendant, they must find ior him, even il
knowledge OF i. did not come to him
until after the refusal.
6. The jury may in mitigation oI
damages consider the plaintiffs char.
ac,cr and conduct ii the same were bad
and itthe plaintiff was not seduced BY
the defendant may consider her wan,
Of virtue.
The judge was anxious to limit tho
time for arguments to five hours on
each side. but after both sides had pro.
tested against timo limit he yielded
the point.
CARLISLE OPENS.
Shortly befoto II o'clock Attorney
Carlisle opened the argument for the
plaintiff He reminded the jury thai
all were follow citizens OF tho District
engaged in the performance Of duty
to tho parties in tho case and to the
community. He claimed TO have made
,ApI ho ,ao, l..