Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1894-04-14

Mr.. Wilson replied by repeating his
previous statement. Mr. Stoll de-
nounced the insinuation as vile and il
famous, and said there was another
court" in which that should be settled.
Mr.. Wilson demanded what he meant
by the other court, and then Judge
Bradley interposed and put stop to
the discussion for the time being.
During Judge Wilson's argument he
was interrupted by Col. Breckenridge
and Mr.. Stoll, and for while the scene
was exciting, Mr.. Stoll asking Judge
Wilson if he insiuuated that he was
party to q forgery. The judge answer
ed that he did not. Judge Bradley
finally preserved order.
Judge Bradley's rulings as to the in
structions he is asked to give to the
jury have been made public. They
are as follows:
"The jury are instructed that this is
an action for breach of contract of
marriage. If the jury find from the
evidence that there were mutual
promises Of marriage as claimed in the
declaration, that would constitute n
binding contract. And the jury are
further instructed that if, after such
contract was made, the defendant
married another person, that would be
q breach Of Contact and the plaintiff
would be entitled to sue. And it " ouiJi
be no defense to this action that the
parties had continued their immoral
relations after the contract, nor that
the plaintiff had been previously i'm
properly intimate with another person,
if such was the fact, provided the de-
PENDANT knew that fact at the time of
making the contract.
THAT if the jury find for the plaintiff
and further find that the attempt to
impeach the plaintiffs chastity and
character was not made in good faith
by him, but merely as means of de-
tense or to injure the plaintiff, then
they may consider those facts in assess
ing the damages, but the jury cannot
award more than the amount claimed
in the declaration, to wit-$5O, 900"
The instructions asked for by coun-
sci for the defendant and allowed by
the court were as follows
Before the plaintiff can recover in
this action, the jury must believe from
al evidence that contract was enter
cd into between the plaintiff and the
defendant by which they agreed with
each other to become husband and
wife.
If the jury find from the evidence
tina, statements were made by the
plaintiff and defendant in the presence
of or to third persons that they were
engaged to be married TO each other, or
that they intended to marry each other,
that such statements We're made pur-
sllnt TO prior understanding and
agreement between the plaintiff and
the defendant. for the purpose of de-
ceiving such third person to the de-
PENDANT then the defendant was not
bound by such contract, but by reason
Of said fact, If it had existed, he bad
The right to refuse to perform such con-
tract; and he may avail himself of such
defense whether, at the time of his re-
iusal, he knew eli such prior unchaste
conduct or not.
IF the jury shall find from the evil
Gence that the plaintiff had been guilty
OF unchaste Conduct with Rhodes, and
that the defendant had condoned such
acts, yet if they find from the evidence
that the plaintiff had been guilty of UNI
chaste conduct with some other man OF
men, which said conduct was unknown
to TIE defendant, the verdict must be
:or tie defendant even the knowledge
ni such conduct did not come to the de-
!eu'!ant until after his refusal tc marry
tie plaintiff"
The case was given to the jury at 3o7
this evening.
FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR
MISS POLLARD.
1t 4 10 o'clock the jury returned
verdict awarding Miss Pollard $4,000
damages.
An appeal was noted by Maj. Butter
worth for Col. Breckenridge.