The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-04-10
Nine of Miss Pollard's Prayers Granted
and but Six of Colonel Breckin-
ridges Allowed.
OPENING OF THE ARGUMENTS
The Evidence Reviewed and Dis
sected by CalderOn Carlisle,
Who Painted the Silver-Haired Defend
ant i'll an Unenviable Light as He
Sat Joking with Ills Counsel.


deron Carlisle, who is more deeply versed
in international law than in breach-of-
promise litigation, consumed the day in thu
Criminal Court in a review of the testimony
before the Jury I'm the Pollard Breckenridge
case. His statement was a detailed dissec-
ton. of the evidence, delivered in a clear.
dispassionate manner. although at times
the lawyer referred TO Colonel BreclIinridgs
in very scathing. but mild-worded. terms.
The silver-haired Congressman conducted
himself very nonchalantly, joking with his
lawyers during the day, while Madeline
Pollard sitting directly in front Of him,
kept her face shaded by a black-veiled
glove at her face most of the time. Only
once was there any interruption OF the ar
gument and that was when Colonel. Brecl1-
inridge set the speaker right on the point
of a family title, about which be seemed to
be rather particular. All day the closest
attention was given TO the speech by jury
and spectators, so that there was deep 81
lence in the court room Mr.. Carlisle will
continue tomorrow, and il is not impossi-
BILE that the speaking will last until Friday.
There was a counter attraction to-day in
the arraignment of a bigamist Of local ce-
lebrity, so that the groups Of curious wom-
EN- hanging about the courthouse were
largely reinforced.
Madeline Pollard wore her most becom-
ing bonnet when she entered the court, ac-
companed by Sister Ellis and her counsel.
to-day. She took her usual chair before
the Judge her profile TO the jury. The aud
fence was composed mostly Of members of
the bar, and was smaller than customarily
assembled to hear the testimony in the
case Judge Bradley first announced his
decision on the prayers for instructions.
Nine prayers of the plaintiff were granted
in modified form and five Of them refused.
Six prayers for the defendant were grant
ed in modified form, or substitutes granted.
and five were refused. incidentally, the
Judge said that while the burden Of proof
rested on the plaintiff TO show that a con-
tract to marry was entered into, If the de-
fendant set up the defense that the con-
tract was not made in good faith the bur-
den of proof would rest upon him TO show
that there was an understanding that the
contract was not to be carried out, aud
that the statements made in the presence
of other persons were made with the un-
derstanding on the part of the plaintiff and
defendant. The Judge was anxious to linn
it the time for argument to five hours on
each side, but, after both sides had pro-
tested against a time limit, he yielded the
point.
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY.
The instructions TO the jury given by
Judge Bradley are given below in con-
densed form. Those for the plaintiff fol-
low:
Ffrst-If the jury finds from the evidence
that there were mutual promises Of mar
riage, as claimed in the declaration, that
would constitute a binding contract, and IL
the defendant married another person, that
would be a breach OF the contract, upon
which the plaintiff would be entitled TO sue.
Illicit relations with him or with others
before the contract was made, II known TO
him, would be no defense.
SecOnd-The burden Of proof is upon the
defendant to show by preponderance or
evidence that there was an agreement that
the semblance of a contract not 10 be car
red out, was agreed upon between them.
Third-If promises were made by the de-
fendant in bad faith. but accepted by tho
plaintiff in good faitn, this bad faith on his
part would not constitute a defense.
Fourth-The conduct OF plaintin and de-
fendant at, about and after the making or
the contract are TO be considered in Judg-
ing its good or bad faith.
Fifth-If the jury find that the defendant
promised the plaintiff plaintiff, In goo good s faltn mt, to
him to establish by a preponderance OF
proof a defense or release, and IL would
not be a defense that he had Illicit reia-
tions with her. or she told him Of Illicit
relations with others.
Sixth-If before the contract there was
intercourse between the two, and the de-
fendant knew that she was previously un-
chaste, it constitutes no defense
SeVenth-If she informed him that she
had been impure with Rhodes, that con-
stitutes no defense.
Eighth-The. secret marriage does not
Ninth-If promise were not made until
after the secret marriage II does not con-
stitute a defense.
Tenth-If the jury find for the plaintiff
they are to consider the prospective ad-
vantage to the, plaintiff from the marriage,
the injury TO her feelings, reputation and
chance OF earning a livelihood Dy the
breach of promise, and may award eXem-
plary damages as well.
Eleventh-If the jury find that plaintif
was chaste save with the defendant and
that the attempt TO impeach her character
they may consider the fact in awarding
damages.
The instructions for the defense are as
follows
FTrst-Before the plaintiff can recover the
jury must believe from all the evidence
that contract was entered into between
the plaintin and defendant 70 become hus-
band and wife.
were made in the presence of or 10 third
parties that they were engaged 10 be mar
ried and such statements were made pur-
suant 10 an understanding for the purpose
Of deceiving third persons. such statements
are not TO be taken as constituting or evil
dencing contract
Thrd-The burden OF proof 20 establish
the contract is upon the plaintiff.
Fourth-If. before the contract the
plaintiff was guilty OF lewd or unchaste
conduct with other men, unknown 10 the
defendant, he was not bound oy con-
tract, and may avail himself Of such de-
fense whether at the time of his refusal
he knew OF the conduct or not. -
Fifth-If the jury believe that the plaintiff
was guilty OF unchaste conduct with other
men, unknown to the defendant, they
must find for him, even II knowledge Of it
did not come 10 him until after the re-
fusal
sixth-Tyhe jury may. in mitigation OF
damages. consider the plaintiffs character
and conduct. IL the same were bad. and
If the plaintiff was not seduced by the
defendant may consider her want OF virtue.