Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1916-11-29
HENDERSON
WINS BREACH
PROMISE SUIT
Judgment for Washing
ton, D. c., Man in Case
of Elizabeth Garmong
Closes Long Proceedings After
Plaintiff Had Once Been
Awarded $4,000, Record for
the Country

Judgment is given for the defendant
III the celebrated breach Of promise
case of Elizabeth Garmong against
John Il. Henderson Of Washington, D.
c., by a rescript handed down Tuesday
by the law court which has been re-
ceived at the Office Of the clerk OF
courts Of Kennebec county.
This case was tried at Bangor in
January, 1915, and verdict was re-
turned by the jury for the plaintiff and
damages assessed at $ll6,C00 which. is
the largest amount ever returned i'll a
breach Of promise case in this country
The case went to the law court on eX-
ceptions by the defendant and another
trial was held at Bangor in April. The
jury did not pass on the question of
liability at this trial but agreed that
il the law court upheld the contentious
CT Miss Garmong that Henderson had
promised to marry her. she should re-
ceive $4,000 If the law court found
that there was a promise and
breach. NJ. Greed Fulton Of Washing
ton and J. b. Merrill Of Ban
gor were counsel for Miss Gar
mong, while the defendant was repre-
scented by Hon. L. B. Deasey of Bar
Harbor, ex-President of the Maine
Senate, and Hon. Oscar F. Fellows of
Bangor, ex-Speaker OF the Maine
House Of Representatives.
1t was alleged that. Mr. Henderson,
who is a son Of ex-United States Sen
ator Henderson Of Iowa, and Miss Gar
mong were frequently together at Bar
Harbor. The case was argued in the
law court at Portland last July. A re-
script by Associate Justice Leslie c.
Cornish rendered Tuesday is as fol-
lows
Penobscot county. Elizabeth Gar
mong vs. John B. Henderson. Rescript
1 Cornish, j.
This is an action for breach Of prom
] Use Of marriage. A former verdict for
the plaintiff has been set aside as
against the evidence. The case now
comes before this Court on report, for
the determination of the liability Of
the defendant the jury having passed
Y upon the question of damages under a
stipulation Of the parties. Held,
1. The burden now rests more heav-
lily upon the plaintiff than when the
case came to this Court before, with a
verdict Of the jury in her favor.
2. Then the burden was upon the de-
PENDANT to convince the Court that the
verdict was manifestly wrong. Now
the Court Is acting with Jury powers,
the question of the preponderance of
evidence is open and the burden is
upon the plaintiff to substantiate her
claim.
8 III upon the former evidence. plus
verdict, the plaintiff was not allowed
n c,1,
minus a verdict, unless her case has
been strengthened by additional and
effective testimony to such an extent
that she can now sustain the burden Of
proof.
a. The new evidence offered bv the
plaintiff is meagre and unimportant
while that presented by the defendant
materially strengthens the defense.
.. The existence of mutual en-
Saeement of marriage can be proved
either by direct evidence Of an eypress
promise or by evidence Of such facts
conduct and circumstances as will lead
10 a reasonable inference of such on
gagement and contract
9. The evidence here is insufficient IN
prove either. The proof Of an EXPRESS
promise comes wholly from the plain.
TN and in view Of the fact that she
swore falsely either in the Courts of
Iowa where she instituted proceedings
against one Smith, or in the Courts of
Maine where she makes similar chars-
es against the defendant, little weight
can be attached to her statements.
l. Nor can any promise or agree
ment be reasonably inferred from the
conduct of the parties viewed in the
hight of all the circumstances. The con-
trary inference is the more probable
and reasonable.
8. 1t is settled principle of law
that if the plaintiff was unchaste with
other men or with another man prior
to or during an engagement with the
defendant. 1t is a bar to this suit, I'M
less at the time he made or renewed
his promise he knew or had been in
formed of her unchastity.
9. Even assuming that an engage
ment was entered into in August, 1909
) or in February or March, 1910, or at any
time prior to November 1910 when the
plaintiff gave birth to- a. child, she has
failed to convince the Court upon these
two essential points.
10. A promise Of marriage made by
the defendant in November, 1910, in
view Of all the facts and circumstances
Is unbelievable. Her own conduct in
first instituting bastardy proceedings
Continued on Paae 5-caI. 81