to a verdict of even one cent, is a work that transcends
human ability.

"One of the plainest principles of law applicable to all civil cases, is
that the plaintiff can only recover where there is a fair preponderance
of evidence in his favor. Upon the principal question in this case--that
is, whether or not there was an agreement of marriage between plaintiff
and defendant--they were the only witnesses. Supposing both to be
equally credible, how can the plaintiff recover when every act affirmed
by her is denied by the defendant? But are they equally credible? The
defendant is proved by the evidence to be a man of character,
reputation, and social position. Who is the plaintiff? By her own
evidence she is one who years ago deserted her husband and three
children in Wisconsin, and commenced the life of an itinerant
fortune-teller. Since then, as a clairvoyant, a mesmerist, a medium, she
has perambulated the country, professing in her handbills to predict
future events and to cure all manner of diseases by her occult arts.

"She has assumed in her travels those invariable proofs of guilt,
_aliases_. She has been proven, by her own writing, daily conversation,
and every-day conduct, to be grossly profane and indecent. By the
testimony of several unimpeached witnesses, produced by defendant, she
is shown to have been an inmate of a house, or houses, of ill-fame, and
to have committed acts of the most shocking indecency and lewdness. And
yet this is the woman whose testimony some of you have received with
absolute verity, while rejecting the testimony of the defendant as of no
value in comparison with it. The question before you was, whether
between this woman and the defendant there had been a binding contract
of marriage. There is no one of you so low that you would have entered
into such an obligation with this woman. You would have started back in
horror at such a proposition; and yet you have been so lost to decency
that you have seemed determined, by your verdict, to thrust such a
disgrace and outrage upon the defendant!

"You were told by the Court that if the plaintiff was married at the
time when she said the defendant agreed to marry her, such a promise was
absolutely void. The plaintiff had herself sworn that the promise was
made in 186--, and that she was then, and had remained for nearly two
years thereafter, a married woman. Did not the Court tell you that such
a promise was void? The Court told you that no