The Wichita daily eagle., 1904-05-07

sible for him to earn $4,000 at the wages
he. draws from this, even If he should
live 10 be $50 years old. And to make
$4,000, as the plaintiff alleges he is worth.
he would have to live TO be as old as
Methuseiah. Besides, the plaintiff has
failed to show in a single instance that
the defendant ever promised to marry
ner. Judge Wall spoke of the plaintiff
as poor girl and, of course, 1 would
expect you to have some sympathy for
her, but she is no more unfortunate than
thousands OF other girls who are % and
still unmarried and are called spinsters.
Mr.. Wall also said that the defendant
had kissed the plaintiff a great many
times. Gentlemen, if each one of us had
been sued for $4,000 for every girl we had
ever kissed when we were young, I do
not believe many OF us would be here
now"
Following the argument Of Attorney
George Adams, the argument of the de-
fense was closed by Attorney John Ad-
ans with a half hours talk.
Mr.. Adams carefully reviewed the evil
dence and argued sfrom the point that
there never was a contract of any kind
existing between the plaintiff and the de-
fendant and that in all of the letters
introduced in evidence there was not one
word that would show that the defendant
had ever intended or promised to marry
the girl; that she was merely working a
scheme TO get part of the defendants
money
He also cited several Instances where,
in letters that she had written to the de-
fendant, the plaintiff stated that she
would nevo' marry anyone and that she
preferred TO remain single He read a
letter dated July 10. 1868. and written at
Liberal, Kan, wherein the plaintiff stated
that she would never marry anyone. This
was only few months prior to the filing
of the suit. and Mr. Adams contended
that at the time these letters We're written
the young lady had no intention of suing
for breach of promise and would not
have had such an idea had it not been
suggested by some one; that. then, in
order to make better case, she had in
troduced the oral contract, as she found
nothing in any of the letters that would
tend to show that the defendant had
ever made her a promise Of marriage
or asked her to become his wife. Mr..
Adams reiterated the fact that in none
of the letters of either person was there
a word concerning the alleged promise
of marriage and contended that this
would be highly improbable if there had
been such contract in existence. He
also called attention OF the jury to the
fact that no time was made in the petit
ton of the plaintiff that the defendant
refused TO carry out his promise until
DecemhSr Is. eight months after he left
the city. or eight months after the alleged
promise was made.
At 4:l0 Judge Wall began the closing
argument for the plaintiff. He COM
mneced by reading that part of the plain
tiff s petition which gave the various
times of the defendants refusal TO carry
out the promise. He said that Mr.. Ad- |
ans statement was made for the pur-
pose Of misleading the jury; that he knew |
it was necessary in a petition of that /
kind to mention an especial time or date :
Of the defendants refusal The petition /
stated that during the months Of August, |
October, November and December the /
defendant hsd at various times refused to /
carry out his promise. He spoke of what I
he considered the contemplate actions /
Of the defendant and said that If he had /
accomplished his intentions. the plaintiff /
would now be numbered among the out
casts, but instead Of that she had the !
strength Of character TO resist him. AZ
the close of his argument Judge Wall /
paid high tribute to womaniy virtue 4
and chastity. He said that the greatest
battles in the world We're not the ones
fought with powder and shell on tho bat
tleffeid but in a wonnan's heart
He spoke of the demeanor OF both wit
nesses while they were on the stand. and
closed by saying that unless the jury