The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1908-04-23
APPEAL FOR A NEW
TRIAL WAS ENTERED.
Attorney Jessup States That
The Defense Wishes to Ar
que the Motion-Attorneys
Engage in Words.

The above verdict was rendered by
the jury in the case OF Susan j. .
Smith VS.. John D. Vaughan at 10: -
O'Clock this morning. The jurymen
balloted from about o'clock yester-
day afternoon until a few minutes be-
fore the announcement of the decis-
SOn. 1t required thirteen ballots to
determine the amount of damages.
H}etWeen twenty-five and thirty bal
1ots were taken to decide the verdict
When the Jurors returned to their box
they appeared 4 tired and worn out
group MessrS WOlfcr, Seaney. Helms
and Kelley who were not members Of
Ehe regular jury were dismissed from
Service.
Immediately after the reading of the
Nerdict by Judge Fox, Wilfred Jessup,
representing the defendant moved for
p new trial. He informed the court
ahe defense desires to argue the mo-
zion and the argument Will be heard
some time following the McGriff case
arobabIy. 1t is likely the court will
Sverrule the motion for a new trial.
IN that instance, an appeal probably
%lll abe taken TO the Appellate court
ObjeS ions and exceptions to testi-
amony of witnesses for the plaintiff
have been taken throughout the trial
thy the defense. This indicated all
along, that it was intended to seek
Hn appeal in case of an adverse decis-
aon. Judge Fox exercised care in
making rulings and frequently called
upon counsel 10 cite authorities before
sustaining objections or making rul-
Ings
Although Mrs. Smith was about the
courthouse, neither she nor the de
oendant was in the court room when
dhe verdict was announced Mr.. John
son was present as the representative
or the plaintiff and Mr.. Jessup as
counsel for the defendant. The latter
expressed surprise at the amount of
manages awarded, saying he was not
so surprised at the verdict but did not
anticipate such heavy damages.
There were those on the iurv who
Thought the plaintiff should be grant
ed heavier damages than 5000 but
there were others, who thought that
amount too large. Consequently there
was fear of deadlock and the final
amount represented compromise to
q certain extent. On the seventh
eighth. ninth and tenth ballots the
vote stood ten to two for $500 On
1he eleventh It shifted to eleven to
one but on the twelfth returned 10 the
previous standing. On the thirteenth
HoWever, both those who had been
holding off agreed with the other ten.
Case Unusual.
The case has been unusual in MANY
ways. It was the first breach of prom
use 10 marry suit that has come to
trlal IN this county in the last decade.
II was not Waged between two vOuns
persons nor what might be termed one
old and one young. The defendant is
seVentY-seven years of age and the
plaintiff f0rty.eight. The defendant is
regarded as a man of wealth The
plainuff was a dreSsmaker and seam
SiresS during her residence in This
city, and at the time the breach Of
promise to marry as we'll as the en-
easement was made. Since leaving
thls city. Mrs. Smith mas resided at
fountain City. Williamsport and Mum.
cit. Her household GOODS are now
stored at MunCie and that city is re-
Earded as her home. Two daughters
both OF whom testified in the case re
side at MrnCie
II required ten days to try the case
ThiS Was not as long as had been ex
pected, The defense did not place up
on the stand one half of the witnesses
1t had subpeoned and the plaintiff did
hot OTTER any Witnesses in rebuttal
AFTER the defense had rested. The
argument required a day and half
Each OF the four attOrneys-Henry l.
Johnson and John +. Robbins for the
plaintiff and T. ]. Study and Wiltrec
Jessup for the defendant put forth his
best efforts in the case and the fact
that one liugaQt lost can not be attl+
buted to any short coming on the nat,
Of counsel.
One OF the most interesting Incl
dents in connection with the case de
veloped yesterday afternoon. John F
Robbins was making the closing arsu
ment for the plaintiff He was re
viewing the testimony of Mrs. CIvde
Alexander. witness for the plaintiff
whose testimony T. J. Study in his ar
Eument had attempted to use for tn,
benefit of the defendant
Mr.. Robbins had just stated in ref
Continued on Page Two.l