The Portland daily press., 1879-03-22
OLIVER VS.. CAMERON.

Evidence of the Widows bad Character.
WAsHINGToN, March 2i.-In the Oliver VS.. Cam
eron case to-day two letters presented by Mrs.
Oliver purporting to be in Cameron's hand writing
were admitted in evidence and counsel tor plaintiff
rested the case in chief
General Butler asked that the case be withdrawn
from the jurv claiming that Mrs Oliver was TO all
intents and purposes a married woman. The court
reserved its decision upon the question of the
legitimacy OF the marriage and the effect Of it upon
contracting party.
Thomas NJ. Oliver was then called and testified:
In 1850 was doing business as merchant tailor in
New Orleans and Raleigh. In the spring Of 1850
went to New York to buy goods; met plaintiff (drs.
Oliver at Osborn Masonic regalia establishment
where she was working. Went to New YORK again
In the spring of 1851 in company with other gentle
man and visited an designation house. While watt
lug in the parlor for girls to come in plaintiff
entered. He passed the night with her. She gave
him her history She told him she had been seduced
while employed at Osborns by man named Johnny
Platt under the promise Of marriage. She had a
child by him which was born alive but afterwards
died. This occurred between the first time he met
her and the meeting at the assignation house He
made arrangements for her to 60 South with him.
He was in search of vest and coat maker and he
would give her employment and never expose her
past life. She agreed and he took her to North
Carolina.
In 1881 he took her back to New York and left
her, She had been with him then only three months.
There was nothing improper with the woman while
In North Carolina. In 1852 he again met plaintiff in
New York and sent her to Louisville with his
nephew. When he met plaintiff in 1851 she said hel
age was 10 and she was not educated He directed
his nephew to board her where he lived, (theInephew
was living at the house of Mrs. Biygeit, u public
house He directed the foreman of his Louisville
shop to give her vests to make and it was done. HI
went to Louisville in June, and found her at Mrs
Biggerts. He suggested that her education wal
imperfect and If she would go to school he would
send her. She consented aud he sent her to a con
vent at Portland, NY. She was restless and wanet
to return to Louisville and finally did SO. Then h
sent her to Methodist school in Bloomfield, Ky
She renamed about five months, then relurued Il
Louisville, and he boarded her with widow Iady
To that time there had been no improper relation
between them. After she returned from BLOOMFIELD
he commenced living with her in August. 1859, ant
until June. 1862 they lived together in dfteren
PAGES at which time he left her. On June S, 1856
he married his present wife. He never lived will
plaintiff in his mothers house in Louisville Hi
nection with the women. He had girl by be
named Tommie. She was born May %, 1856 al
died March 90 $50 She was buried in the cemeter.
al Louisville. Plaintiff put up headsone with the
inscription "Tommie, daughter Of I. M. and NJ.
Oliver " Had another child by her now living. sh'
| WIS born March IL, 1857, He never said she wa
| his wife, but she went by the name of Mrs Oliver
| Wien he first met her he was g,ass widower, an
was up to 1859 when he was divorced That WIS
his second vile. Never lived with plaintiff aftt
| 1850, but bad seen Der frequently She had bee
wiring to him constantly since 1860 up to two weel
ago. He could not make move that she did n,
/ know about almost as soon as himself. No matte
where he went when he got to his destination he W;
! very apt to find letter from her awaiting hin
When he quit her he claimed the chi
and she made several attempts to get
but tailed. Finally plaintiff aban oned the child
He secured possession of the child aud kept her ,
school seven years AMI che was now married an
| respected, but NOT known to plaintiff. No ceremon
oil marriage was ever performed between him al
| plalni1f by his bo0kkeepor he made no provsiC
for maintenance of plaintiff when he got marie
neither uid he tell her of his intention to marry b
cause be did not think it was any Of her bushes
He had denied publicly and repeatedly 10 sever
persons before he left plaintiff that she was ever
wife and at no time did he call her Mrs. Oliver or
low her to be called BY that name with his consen
He believed that in coming here he could show tn
plaintiff was blackmaier; that his tes,imoI
would mitigate damages if not destroy them alt
gether. She had annoyed and tormented his fami
for years and if he could prevent any innocent pc
son from becoming her victim be intended to do
He had not been promised anything for coming he
and testfyDg and he did not expect thing beyol
his expenses; if he did not receive these be had
ficient funds to get home with.
This closed testimony OF witness and further hea
l ing was postponed till Monday,