Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-10-07
TRIAL GRANTED
(centinued from Page ons)


at Chevy Chase. Md: that Henderson
called on her and invited her to Bar Har-
Dor. She went there that summer and
spent three weeks. in which time the de-
PENDANT was very attentive and anec-
tionate; that they went walking, riding
and motor boating.
Miss Garmong testified that while
there the defendant told her he loved
her and intended to make her his wife;
that he had given her $50, which she
intended to pay back. but he had later
written her the letter offered in testi-
money to consider it contribution to
her summer outing.
She went from Bar Harbor to Scran-
ton, then to Philadelphia and to
Washington. She testified that Hender-
son visited her frequently and wrote
her often. In March, 1910. she said, he
referred to their marriage as to be
within that year.
Letters were introduced, mostly Of a
friendly nature, of early dates in 1910.
One dated July 16, which the plain
tiff said was in answer to one in which
she told Henderson that she was to be-
come a mother, said that it might be
we'll for her to go away from home.
The plaintiff said that the next letter
contained two $50 bills. Her child was
born in Washington, Nov. 8. 1910.
Dismissed Her by 'Phone
In the summer Of 1911, the plaintiff
says she went to Bar Harbor and aft
er several Intellectual efforts to see
the defendant she talked with him
over the telephone and he told her
that he was all through with her.
Since that time the plaintiff said she
had been supporting herself and child
by doing domestic service in several
places in Maine and for some time in
and near Bangor.
The plaintiff testified that Henderson
told her over the telephone: You can
take our baby and go to - with her.
1 am all through with you"
The jury after being out one hour
and Ave minutes brought in the verdict
of $4,000 in Miss Garmongs favor.
The attorneys in the case were Greed
M. Fulton Of Washington. d. c.. and
John B. Merrill Of Bangor for the plain
tiff; L. B. Deasy of Bar Harbor and
Oscar F. Fellows Of this city for the
defendant.
Counsel for Mr.. Henderson stated
just after the verdict had been an
nounced that the case would be taken
to the law court and a motion to tina:
effect was filed at the supreme court,
Wednesday.
The motion was made on the usual
formal grounds that the verdict is
against the law. the evidence, the
weight of evidence and that the dam
ages awarded to the plaintiff are eX-
cessive.
The Rescript
The rescript follows:
Penobscot County.-Elizabeth Gar
mong VS.. John B. Henderson.
Rescript by Savage. c. J.
/. The unchastity Of the plaintiff IN
suit for breach of promise Of mar
riage. with another man prior to or dur
ing an engagement of marriage with
the defendant. Is a bar to the suit, UNI
less at the time he made or renewed
the promise of marriage, relied upon
he knew or had been informed of her
unchastity. t.-s. ..t, u
2. 1t being admitted that the plain
tiff in an action for breach of promise
Of marriage. pending an engagement OF
marriage with the defendant, made &c
cusations on oath in court charging an
other man with deduction during the
period Of the CT cement and with the
paternity Of her unborn child. such &C
cusations constitute bar to the suit.
unless the defendant after knowledge
that the accusations had been made
made or renewed promise of marri-
age. 1t is immaterial whether the ac-
cusations were true or false. Even If
false, the making Of such accusations
was such conduct on her part as tended
necessarily to destroy the confidencies
essential to connubial happiness. and to
defeat the great purpose Of the mar
riage relation. 1t released the defend
ant from the obligation Of any promise
he had made.
3. On a motion for new trial on III
evidence. if the evidence is conflicting,
the court will not disturb the verdict, Z
1t is found to be supported by evidence.
credible. reasonable. and consistent with
the circumstances and probabilities Of
the case so as to afford a fair presump-
ton Of its truth.
4. A verdict will be set aside as
against evidence. when it is not such
as reasonable minds are warranted, in
believing. as when it Is incredible or un-
reasonable, or inconsistent with the
proved circumstances Of the case; or
when the evidence to the contrary Of
the verdict is so over weighing as to
induce the belief that the jury were led
into mistake. or were so moved by pas
sion or prejudice as not to give due con-
sideration and effect to all the evidence
S. In this case, giving to the plain
tiff such degree Of credibility as her
own statements entitle her to, the court
are Of opinion that her practically un-
supported testimony is so overborne by
proved circumstances. by her obvious
disregard Of the sanctity of an oath,
by her own inconsistent conduct, by the
mutual conduct of both, by the testi-
mony, contradictory to hers. Of Witness
es apparently reputable disinterested
and credible, and by the probabilities
Of tho case inConsiStent with bor c,as..,