New Britain herald., 1925-12-04
RHINELANDER CASE RESTS WITH JURY Judge Explains Possibilities Of
 Decisions EACH SIDE IS CONFIDENT
Justice MorsChauscr Outlines Seven Major Questions Which Jury Must settle In Arriving At Its Verdict In Annulmcnt Suit

III AliullltHt Suit
 White Plains, Dec. 4 LPl-The suit for annulment of marriage brought by the wealthy young Leonard Kip , lthinelander against his part negro wife. Alice Beatrice Jones, was plac- cd in the hands of the jury shortly before noon today.
 seven Major Questions Out of the mass Of testimony, much of 1t conflicting, taken during the three weeks Of trial, the jury men were charged by Justice Nor schauser to find answers to seven questions propounded to 1t. On the jury findings on these questions will be based the justices decision wheth- CT or not an annulment shall be granted. If granted, his decision will act merely as an interlocutory decree, to be finally reviewed and passed upon by the next regular spe- cial term of Westchester county su- prome court.
 AS the case went 10 the jury op- posing counsel both expressed con- fldence as to the outcome.
 UnprintabIe Evidence Extremely sensational and much or it unprintable, the evidence pre- sented by Rhinelander to prove that he was deceived before marriage as to his Wife's negro blood, and oppos- ing evidence presented by her coun- scl to prove that her husband was aware that she was part negro, has sustained a country wide interest.
 Justice Morschausers charge 10 the jury was relatively brief, oc- cupylng but an hour and a quarter. After reviewing the seven points at issue, the justice entered into dis Cusson of the evidence.
 Judges Charge
 When a man marries a woman who is of colored blood" he said. 'and that fact Is unknown to him, but known to her and such marriage takes place because of her direct misrepresentation. or whether such marriage could nc have taken place had he known the true condition of her blood, as she knew if. then such representation as 10 her color. either by direct statement or by conceal. ment through silence. Is sufficient to relieve him, if you say Il fraud was committed by her"
 He also charged the Jury to weigh carefully the question whether Rhinclander had voluntarily CO., habited with the defendant after he had gained full knowledge concern ing her negro blood.
 The Seventh Point
 The Iury's decision on the sev- Tenth point upon which it must pass is of the most vital importance to the outcome of the case.
 That point is: Did the plaintiff cohabit with the defendant after he had full knowledge that the defend ant was of colored blood?" If the jury makes decisions favorable to Rhinclander on the first six points, but answers Ives" to the seventh question. the whole case will be up- set.
 The other six questions are:
 At the time of the marriage of the parties, was the defendant col ored and of colored blood?
 Did the defendant before the marriage by silence conceal from the plaintiff the fact that she was of Colorod blood?
 Did the defendant before the marriage represent to the plaintiff that she was not of colored blood |?
 Did the defendant practice said ,Concealment or make said represen- tation with the intent thereby 10 in duce the plaintiff to marry her?
 Was the plaintiff, by said con- cealment or by said representations or by both, induced to marry the defendant?
 If the plaintiff had known that defendant was of colored blood, would he have married herr"
 After reviewing the seven points al issue. Justice Morschauser then entered into a discussion of the evid- cnce and testimony presented at the trial.
 Discusses Evidence
 Judge Mills for the plaintiff, ' said Justice Morschauser, comment ed upon and criticised the failure to call the defendant and her father as witnesses and asked you 10 draw unfavorable inferences therefrom and that 1t can be assumed the plaintiffs case would have been aid. ed had either of them taken the stand.
 While no presumption arises ir this respect, you are at liberty and Ican give 1t such consideration and draw such inferences as you think are warranted by the proof from the failure to call such witnesses or tc call any witnesses who might shed light upon the case.
 You have also heard other wit. Inesses for the plaintiff, and you have Ialso heard witnesses for the defend ant, beside those witnesses who arc related to her. Are there reasons why those witnesses testified in ths manner they did? Were they hostile or biased? Had they some ulterior motive that moved them? All these are for you to discover and to de- termine when you weigh the testi- ,mony
 This does not mean that you should disbelieve the witnesses who were interested. hostile or biased, but you must weigh the testimony tCiven by such witnesses in the light of the circumstances as they appear cd to you. You saw them on the stand. You heard their testimony and the manner in which 1t was Eiv- en, and the interest they displayed You noted their hostility and their activity so far as this case is con. Iccrned. and you will weigh the Iproofs and you will find inc truth.