New-York tribune., 1894-04-15

evidence any defence to or release from any such
promise. and It would not be defence that he had
promise, that he had been Informed by her prior
to said promise that she had had Illicit relations
). The defendant having acknowledged improper
intimacy win the plaintiff b iorc ne ALLEGED prom, m
knew The plaintiff not chaste woman AT the
time Of his frs, intimacy with her. the jury in
struct'l that. II they believe from the evil
dence these facts to be So such fact. would not not
heve that the contract OF marriage was thereafter
G. If the jury find from the evidence that the
plaintiff dA tell the defendant. hc states. that
she hed been Improperly ntnate WIN l;2des. ana
ised 10 marry her the fact that she had ini9rm'i
would not affect the validity or ms contract "l
marriage. or furnish justification for his refusal 10
= The jury are instructed that the fact which
defendant admits. mat ne was s"'r'uy MAJ .,l
29th OF April 1896 after some oi ne pt ',i''ses ~.
legged and before the remaining promises t. marry
this action and is no bar or impediment 70 the
right II the plaintiff 70 recover. ,.... .,. ,ho 10.
f"udant was married N the 2''h - April. l~l am
i-l he npt ana rcl.,rr anT Ehon: dlscio.is ,h
fact q that msrrasc. ne ~ Dnl-'l 10 mar MARI y I
engagement Of marriage with her such secret mar
rlarr would hc ~ d.f.nc" - TINS a'toh'
g. The jury are instructed that n they hnd Tor
the p'antG in estimating damages. th'y -" 20
consider an the facts in py.lence as 10 The trit-
lions between the parties up 10 m" br' thl'E 'i t'
promise. the proYecye grcun.tiy ana ..c i. n,
vontasc to th" pliini'i from '".., IN i,.
its violation. the manner and cirenn ,inc,- ~ ~,
thereby aud It's eject upon heT nrps OF ,AfnlhS l
= ivelhool in tho future. Ana me l'Hf ~ ~
- taxi into consideration ih" wrn.r sunaiii'-i IF
he dclendant. ard may award cNemI!af, d-mAs p
- 10 t" That II tho jury nnd Tor tho plaintiff AMI
further hnd that the attempt 10 imprach the PLAN
tiTs chnsdy am cnarHc,,r va r'. mn i ~ H..
irrcr' osc or - n,"is I'm assrs.ng The damage. bat
80.
claimed In thc declaration, 80 VII N'""
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DEFENDANT
Tho Instructions asked FOR by counsel for the de-
fendant and allowed by the Court were a. follows;
Before ,hc paHgl l can ri TIycr c cheng n i@,s hat i0
contract was entered into between the pIi'ntll
ana defendant hy which thfy ak'eed VII" '"'"
other 10 become husband AMI VIE ..
: II the Jury find from the evidence thai s'atr-
snt wcT mad by by 'Se s Pfa' Ih44 peraoa a hat they
were engaged b" married - r-ch "thei' or I'm, nm
T.lts were made Pursuant 10 a vri'F und'I- i"hl-
inp and agreement between IN" paintih ana no,
persons. ana w. err, ~, h taken a. constituting or
eyldencinp the existenc" OF c0n.sact 20 n.iiS
Tbe burden ~ proof to establish th" contract
,,I on ,s mon the plaintiN and that they should
81 ,r mo defendant unless they believe from
aI the evidence In the case that II Wa iu,"aIIl
srre"d between the plaintln and the defendant that
they were In fact 20 be- married. ,.
~ 'Even II The Jury should nnd from the evidence
that a contract OF marriage was enterrl mo h nr
,u,cen rho nlainfn ana the defendant. yet " they
further fni from the evidence that prior - ma ma
,ire me rlantln had been guilty OF un'nast' con
dnrt vim other men. and that such lact was u'-
knoxn 10 the defendant. then the defendant VIZ
not bound by such contract. hut by reason OF s s,
fact II IL had existed ne had the rlsht 10 -
"a rerforrn such contract. and h" may hNall nun
self of such defence whether, at me iHlc 81 ~,
refusal he knew OF such prior un'has'e '"'''''
not. , -. 49, .,tterce that
the uIaintlf had been guilty or unchhSie roiu roin,.d
,pttb Rodes and that the defendant hdh cohpotnr,
such acts yet II they ind from The eVlaehrr in,
tho nlalntId had been guilty OF unchastc conIur.
me
,"as unknown TO the defendant the Ncrdlct, nuSe
ho Tor The defendant II the knowledge OF sucn
conduct did not come TO the DEFENDANT uhl'i "''''
his refusal to marry the plaintlH ,-,c, of
s If the jury find that there was a con.d' ad also
ma rriave between plantn and defendant. ana AIso
1aU ~ md that defendant has been rrilrN'' VI, .,
from bv any OF the defences urged ,ntS in"i -
utilization OF damages consider the pas I"h h-
a",c1 and conduct. II the same were btd' anu "''
previous Misconduct. III,
Ia c,nciuson Judge Bradley SAID; -.-..,
'.,o sum II ali up II you fail 10 nnd that -
,os made or that the defendant was eHcuseI l'1, 1
,he rnrforrnancc Of IT, your verdict sh0ull De i"I
,hc defendant II. however. you Ind tha' sun -
contract did exist ana that the d'l"hu"l' ,t 90
reeasel fhorefrom. you are 10 hnd Tor te P'"'''''