Evening star., 1894-04-14

lney 20 WIN II. naQ tnlS weapon IN
their hands, and he invited them. as the
last words he could utter in this case, to
impale him with that spear, hold him aloft
that all the world could see, be warned and
cry out, as justice was done, Amen and
amen,
Mr.. Wilson thanked the jury for their at
tention, and took his seat
The Judges Charge.
Judge Bradley then, at 2:30 o'clock.
charged the jury. He said that it was a
matter of congratulation to the court and
the community that the case was about to
come to a clSse. He referred to the publi-
cations which had been made. ard said it
was also a matter of congratulation that
they were to cease.
To the lawyer, he said, the case presented
very few points of interest. If the parties
had been obscure 1t would probably have
excited little attention. But owing to the
prominence of one of the parties of the
case, it had attracted wide attention, and
because, he feared, of a prurient interest
In the details of the case, the courthouse
had been besieged by persons seeking ad-
mission to the room. He said that the pub
lie was to be congratulated upon the in
frequency of such cases.
DeluGed With Anonymous Letters.
He said the court had been deluged with
anonymous letters and suggestions as to
the conduct of the case. Even the jury, he
was informed, had not been free from such
suggestion. He trusted and believed that
the jury had faithfully observed the in
functions of the court not to discuss the
case. Whatever they had heard or read
about the case not developed in the testi-
mony they should, and he hoped they
would, entirely disregard.
Judge Bradley referred to the saying that
there were three parties to the case-the
community well as the defendant
and plaintiff The community, he said
m in
actual concern or interest, except to see
that justice was done. The jury were not
TO concern themselves about the vindica-
tion or womannood or of the country girl
in the abstract
Their duty was to vindicate the truth.
They were not to settle any abstract ques-
tions of morality.
The Question for the Jury.
The question they were to decide was
whether any contract of marriage had been
made between these two parties This they
cannot decide from the evidence without
reference to sentiment or personal wishes
Whether the defendant ought, as a mere
matter of sentiment to have married the
plaintiff, was not the question.
The question was only whether such a
contract had existed and had been viola ted.
1t was not their province by their verdict to
repair the character of either party. He
said that they must not consider at all the
intimation that the suit had been brought
TO in some way punish the defendant He
referred to the testimony in the case, some
OF winch had been of character that
could not be spread before the public He
said that to the credit of both the plaintiff
and the defendant their stories had been
told in as clean language as 1t was possible
to clothe them in
He complmented counsel also on the tact
with which they had handled the case.
He regretted, however, that in one case
counsel had not restrained himself to the
same degree. He referred to the testimony,
going over the whole lines of the defendant
and the plaintiff. and said this testimony
was of value to them in weighing the prob
abilities of the case. The plaintiff referred
to the history of their relations with each
other and to promises made to her in the
presence of third parties as well as to a
promise made to her when they were alone.
The defendant denied that when alone
with the plaintiff he had ever made such a
promise. and declared the promises made in
the presence of third persons were made in
pursuance of an understanding that they
were to make such representations in order
to create an erroneous impression.
Judge Bradley then referred to the in
structions which had been granted, and ,ead
them. commenting briefly on them as he pro-
ceeded.
The instructions asked for by the plain
tiff, finally amended and allowed by
Judge Bradley were as follows:
AhC july dic uStcu lllS Is ali ACT
for a breach of a contract for marriage. If
the jury find from the evidence that there
We're mutual promises of marriage as claim
ed by the declaration. that would constitute
breach of contract. And the jury are
further instructed that If after such con-
tract was made, the defendant married
another person, that would be a breach of
the contract and the plaintiff. would be en-
titled to recover and it would be no defense
to this action that he had carnally known
the plaintiff before or after such contract;
ror would ii be a defense that she had Illicit
intercourse with another person, If such
were the fact, before she had such inter-
course with him, If he knew the fact at the
time of making the contract
The jury are instructed that IL they be-
lieve from the evidence that the defendant
made any of the alleged promises of mar
riage in bad faith. not intending to keep the
same, and further find that the plain
tiff understood and accepted such promises
in good faith, and agreed to marry the de-
fendant, the bad faith of the defendant is
no defense in this action.
In determining whether the plaintiff in
good faith understood and believed the de-
fendant to be sincere in his promise to
marry her, or whether she understood and
agreed that the said promises were not to
be kept by the defendant the jury are TO
consider the condition of the plaintiff at the
time and times, and also the conduct of the
defendant at, about and after the time of
such promise.
If the jury find from the evidence that
the defendant promised to marry the plain
tiff, and that the plaintiff accepted these
promises in good faith and promised to
marry the defendant, then the burden of
the proof is upon the defendant to estab-
lish by preponderance of evidence any de-
fense to or release from any such promise
and it would not be a defense if he had had
Illicit relations with her before or after
such promise. or that he had been informed
by her prior to said promise that she had
had Illicit relations with another.
The defendant, having asserted that he
had had carnal knowledge of the plaintiff
before the making of the alleged promise
to marry, and having asserted that he knew
she was not a virgin and free from sexual
fault at the time of his first intercourse
with her. the jury are instructed that.
even II they believe from the evidence that
the plaintiff was not chaste before such
Intercourse with the defendant. and that
he knew of such previous unchastity, such
facts would not justify verdict for the
defendant If the jury believe that the con-
tract of marriage was therefore made.
If the jury find from the evidence that
the plaintiff did tell the defendant, as he
ates that she had been imprudent with
James C. Rodes, and thereafter, and after
the death of his wife. he promised to marry
the plaintiff, and she him. the fact that
she had informed him that she had had
Illicit relations with the said Rodes would
not affect the validity of his contract of
marriage. or further justify his refusal to
keep said promise.
As to Damages.
If the jury find from the evidence that
the defendant was married on the 18th cay
of bot Eap