The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-05-05
Sued The JeHely Manufacturer for Breach
Of Promise and Seduction.
HER CHILD WAS BORN AT NEW YORK
ne'sniani Claims Verdict Was Against EVdsncs
That Court Erred in lis Rulngs and That New
Evidence Has eosn Discovered.

The breach of promise of marriage
case OF Trase V. Mainz against Bene-
dict j. Loderer, in which a jury i'm the
common pleas division of the supreme
court gave the plaintiff a verdict for
$4,000. was heard by the appellate
court today on the defendants petition
for new trial. On seven grounds the
defendant ass the court TO set aside
the verdict. These grounds are: First,
that the verdict was against the evil
dence; second. that the verdict was
against the evidence and the
weight OF the evidence: third,
that the damages awarded by
the jury are grossly excessive in view
of the testimony in the case; fourth. be-
cause of error of the presiding justice
i'm admitting evidence objected 10 by
counsel for the defendant; fifth, because
the presiding justice erred I'm refusing
To charge the jury as requested by the
defendants counsel. sixth. because the
language of the counsel for the plain
tiff in arguing this case before the
jury was improper and tended
TO inflame the passions of said
jury I'm such manner as TO cause them
TO disregard the evidence. to- which Ian
guage an exception was taken: seventh.
on the grounds of newly discovered
evidence.
The plaintiff is, according TO the brief
OF the defendants counsel. woman %
years of age and had been clerk IN
the office of one Dewey Il. Adams. a
jeweler, who for II years had kept
mandatory I'm the same building with
the defendant. She claims that some
time in January or February. 1886. the
defendant promised her marriage, at
her home 253 Lockwood street. i'm this
.lsatt 20 he MIA 10
that the defendant seduced her some
time i'm May, 1896, and that in the latter
part of September she notified him that
she was with child by him. which child
il Is claimed was born on the 30th day
of April. 1897.
The defendant denies that he made
the plaintiff any promise Of marriage,
and while admitting that his acquaiEt
ance with her was i'm it's nature a liza
son. denies he ever seduced her, and
further says that as to her having Il
child born 20 her he has always had
doubts but that her assertion that such
was the fact the means OF her procur-
ing much money from him before the
bringing OF the present suit.
The case was heard before the late
Judge Bosworth and Augustus :. Mil
Ter. of counsel for Mr.. Lederer. claimed
the record Of the stenographer wus
quite Imperfect. afT. MtttCr made 4
long argument. and he and his partner.
Thomas L. Carroll filed a long brief
in the case. Special attention was paid
TO the alleged inadeQuacy OF the test-
mony of Miss MainZ and other wit
uesses TO support the finding of the
jury.
Mir. Miller called attention TO the alb
sence Of letters between the parties and
their conduct as different from that of
most engaged parties, the defendant
lafr ft,f,4 20. a1s.ft
friends, nor her most intimate trends
knowing Of any engagement or claim
Of a promise Of marriage until after
Miss Mainz went TO New York To give
birth to a child The letters sent 10
defendant from New York counsel con
tended. showed there was no claim Of
n promise OF marriage. Counsel saiG
that the language Of Mr.. owen. counsel
for plaintiff. was part 'cularly objec-
tionable when the following words
We're used: MY friend on the other
side SAYS this Is an appeal for money.
Gentlemen outside OF New England IL
that man had done what he has 10
this woman he would have had daylight
let into him by many indignant citi-
-.zrrre. ~ =
The new evidence which II was
clsimed 10 have been discovered by the
defendant was referred 10 i'm the ani-
davis of DR. Geo. Stedman Of Boston
Peter y Smith and Richard Martin. Of
New York and these gentlemen are ex-
pected should there be n now trial TO
pive evidence that NAY support Mr.
1ederer's claim that Miss Mainz never
Pave birth to 4 child.
Franklin y. owen. counsel for the
plaintiff argued that there was plenty
| OF opportunity for Mr. Lederer 10 have
secured the evidence alleged now To
he now at the previous hearing end
maintained that the court would End
| on an exauoination that the iurv's YER
| dict .,vas fully justified hv the evidence.
Mr.. owen further said that his lanCu-
are was fully ius'ined bv tho testi-
monv concerning Mr. Lederer's con-
Il duct