The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-04-14
A FORGED LETTER.
Judge Wilson Created q
Scene at the Pollard
Hearing Today.
THREATENED BY OPPOSING COUNSEL
Judge Bradley Makes Public His
Findings for Plaintiff and
Defendant.

WASHINGTON, April, A. 1s94.-The last
day of the Pollard Breckenridge trial began
this morning under circumstances no diff
ferent from those on other days. Madeleine
Pollard was not present She had disap-
peared from public view when Mr.. Calderon
Carlisle completed his opening argument in
her behalf But Col Breckenridge was
there, seemingly Indifferent to the further
Judge Wilson. The court room was not
! crowded when Judge Wilson rose to COM
plete his speech, shortly after ten O'Clock,
but it soon filled up
Judge Wilson said he would show that
there was nothing whatever in the claims OF
the defense. 1t had never been claimed that
she had illicit relations with any men living
or dead, save the defendent and James q.
Rodes, and he believed he had shown that
the charge against the old farmer, now
dead, was untrue. But, said Judge Wilson,
he would meet the defense on its own ground
and show that even with an admission that
the plaintiff had had immoral relations with
Rodes that was no defense. Judge Wilson
read the prayer of the plaintiff on this
point, as granted by Judge Bradley.
Major Butterworth and Colonel Thomp-
son, said Judge Wilson, knew only too well
that this instruction could not be overcome
and that was the reason they did not argue
the case, but indulged in pyrotechnics
The defendant was lawyer, versed in the
ways of the law, but he had not proved his
defence If it rould be shown that the de-
fendant had not told the whole story, if it
could be shown that he had prevaricated,
that would impair his testimony, and Judge
Wilson promised to show that every one of
his material statements had been fatty
contradicted and was not true. The
testimony of Sarah Cess was as worthy of
credence as his. Had not this woman testi-
fed that the defendant came to her before
the trial began and tried to get her to
testify against hima Was it not proved by
Sarah Cess, who had not a particle OF inter-
est in this case that the defendant had
brought the plaintiff to her house and the
woman had fatty contradicted his assertion
that the plaintiff had been to her house be-
fore that time. Sarah Cess, he said, was to
be believed infinitely more than the defen
dant, who had every interest at stake.
AN EXCITING SCENE.
Just previous to the recess there was an
exciting scene in court Mr.. Wilson roundly
denounced the disputed letter of the plain
tiff's as forgery and said that forgery had
been based upon her genuine letter to Wos-
sic Brown, which one of the defendants
counsel (Mr. StoiD had been carrying round
in his pocket
II.
he was party to the forgery.
Mr.. Wilson replied by repeating his pre-
vious statement.
Mr. Stoll denounced the insinuation as vile
and infamous, and said there was ssanother
court" in which that should be settled
Mr. Wilson demanded what he meant by
another court, and Judge Bradley interDosed
and put stop to the discussion for the time
being.
Judge Wilson had not concluded his sum-
ming up for the plaintiff when the court
took its noon recess. The able counsel
seemed to be just warming up to his work,
and the indications were that his closing
speech would occupy most of the day.
Judge Bradley's rulings as to the instruc-
tions he is asked to give to the jury at the
close of Judge Wilson's address, have been
made public. They are as follows:-
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PLAINTIFF. 4,
1. 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 con-
stitute a binding contract. And the
jury are further instructed that if,
after such contract was made,
the defendant married another person,
that would be a breach of the contract, and
the plaintiff would be entitled to sue. And
it would be no defence to this action that the
parties had continued their immoral rela-
tions after the contract, nor that the plaintiff
had previously been improperly intimate
with another person, if such was the fact,
provided the defendant knew that fact at
the time of making the contract.
2 The jury are instructed that If they
believe from the evidence that the defendant
made any of the alleged pomises of marriage
Fin bad faith, and not intending to keep the
same, and further find that the plaintiff ac
cepted such promises or in good faith, and
agreed to marry the defendant, that the bad
faith or intention of the defendant is no de-
fense in this action.
8. In determining whether the plaintiff, in
good faith, understood and believed the de-
fendant to be sincere in his promises 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 con-
slider the conduct of the plaintiff at the time
and since, and also the conduct of the de-
fendant at, about and after the time Of such
promises.
4. If the jury find from the evidence that
the defendant promised the plaintiff
to marry her, and that plaintiff
in good faith believed and accepted such pro-
mise, or that he acknowledged himself as
engaged to marry the plaintiff, which pro-
misses were accepted by the plaintiff, when
the burden is upon the defendant to establish
by preponderance of the evidence any de-
fense to release from any such promise, and
it would not be a defense that ne mad
illicit relationf 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.
IMPROPER INTIMACY.
5. The defendant having acknowledged
improper intimacy with the plaintiff before
the alleged promise of marriage, and having
also asserted that he knew the plaintiff was
not chaste woman at the time of his first
intimacy with her, the jury are instructed
that even if they believe from the evidence
these facts to be so that such facts would not
justify verdict for the defendant if the
jury believe that the contract of marriage
was thereafter made
6. If the jury find from the evidence that
the plaintiff did tell the defendant as he
states, that she had been improperly intimate
with Rodes, and if the defendant, after the
death of his wife promised to marry her, the
fact that she had informed him of her Illicit
relations with the said Rodes would not
affect the validity of his contract of mar
riage, or furnish justification for his refusal
to keep said promise.
7. The jury are instructed that the fact
which defendant admits that he was secretly
married without the knowledge of plaintiff
on or about April 30, 1898, after some of
the promises alleged and before the remain
ing promises to marry her, the plaintiff,
does not constitute a defence to this action,
and is no bar or inpediment to the right of
the plaintiff to recover.
THE SECRET MARRIAGE.
s. If the jury find from the evidence that
ninth of April, 1898, and he kepband caused
%f,L L,H