Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1879-03-21
McCaffry; did not hear that of the Duke OF o.
mand or the Butler family; met her half

McCaffry; did not hear that Of the Duke OF o.
mand or the Butler family; met her half n
dozen times.
AFTER SHE LEFT NEW YORK.
In 1851 witness arranged with her to go to
North Carolina to work at vest making. ard
took her to Raleigh There was no such episode
as stopping at stewards, In Petersburg; his
Raleigh. Recollects that she called herself
Cooper sometimes. Took her back to New York
In two or three months and left her. Did not
know family in Petersburg named Stewart
Had nothing to do with her 10 North Carolina.
In 1852. January sth, witness left Raleigh for
K eayns his bnn 5hsf her e
sent her, in company with his nephew James
w. Gaskins, to Louisville. In March, 81, she
educated; he told his nephew to board her at
Mrs. Bickert's. where he mad boarded Witness
went to North Carolina. thence to New York,
and thence to Louisville, where he arrived In
May or June. She was at vest making and he
suggested that she should go to school, and he
sent her TO the Catholic school at Portland. Ky
She seemed to be restless and wanted to return
TO Louisville, and he then sent her to bloomfield
TO a Methodist school, and thinks it was there
she first passed under the name OF Cooper; she
remained one seSSion-fiVe months-and he then
boarded her with widow lady, and during this
time, as far as he was concerned she was pure:
he was trying to reform her.
he COMMENCED LIVING WITH HER
in August 1854; his mother having arrived in
the meantime, he hired house to live in. This
was ON Walnut street: lived at different houses
from August, 1854, to June list, $780, married his
present wife on June 5th, of that year; never
lived with her in his mothers house In Louis
Vile. KY; had girl, named Tommie, by plain
tiff, born May 22d, 1855, died March 9th, 1856;
:. Tommie, daughter of T. NJ. and NJ A. Oliver.'
Had another child born March 18th, 1857; wit
ness went back and forth to this house. Witness
never said she was his wife or that she was not:
never introduced her as his wife; presumed that
she was known as Mrs. Oliver; had living wife
at this time up to 1859, when he procured a d.
G., and her name was Frances Marion Stewart:
her fathers name was Charles Stewart, and he
was merchant tailor, not conOdOre.
WITNESS QUIT THE PLAINTIFF FOREVER
on the 1st OF June, 1860; she has been writing TO
him continuously up to two or three weeks ago
Another singular thing was that he could not
make move without her knowing 1t, and when-
ever he went to new place he always found
letter. The child was three years old when he
left her, and he had attempted to get the Child
but she had refused. In October, 1866. when In
Cincinnati, he received letter from plaintiff
He destroyed it, for 1t was not fit for any one to
read. 1t was to the effect that if he would come
to Louisville and take her clothing and her
child's out Of pawn, she would give up the
child. He made
A LEGAL ATTEMPT TO GET THE CHILD
In that month but did not succeed, on the
ground that she (plaintifD was the natural
mother. Witness in response to the letter went
She could be; she had no valuable jewels or
clothing that he knew Of: witness took the
clothing out OF pawn and she agreed to give no
the child, but she did not perform the PROMISE
and he then commenced legal proceedings. The
decision was against him on the ground that
the child was born out of wedlock. She fire.
quently wrote to him for money for the
daughter and he always responded. The letters
TO him were very frequent and they were al
ways answered by the rhino (money.) Wit
ness never died during the war at Richmond
After 1866 she continued to call ON him for
money, but he never sent her dollar after
wards. In April, 1867. he obtained possession
OF his child; received letter from Mr.. Peli stat
ing that she had abandoned the child and left her
at Catholic school; went to the convent, found
her there, and told the Lady Superior that he
would give his daughter money TO buy her
and he did so, and took her with him to ClncIn-
natl, and put her with the Sisters of Notre
Dame, near Cincinnati, and kept her there till
January, 1874. There was contract signed,
drawn up by Mr.. Pell when be went to Louis.
vile. 1t bound him to educate the child, and
had been signed by the plaintiff. There was no
doubt but the school Of Notre Dame was one OF
the best In the world. She made several at
tempts to take the child away; and, in conse-
quence, he took the child to Rttenhouse square,
Ihladelphia subsequently She came to Mich
was, by agreeing to allow her to remain where
she was. She then went to Cincinnati and had
scandalous article published In one of the
papers OF that city, and then went to Ritten-
house square.
THERE NEVER WAS ANY MARRIAGE CEREMONY
performed between the plaintiff and himself, by
the Dookkeeper OF any one else He received
letter, In 1878, from her, requesting the answer
to be sent to the care Of Judge Marshall; and
under date OF Sept. 20th, 1873, he wrote a whole
history Of her.
HAD MISSED THE FAMILY BIBLE,
and 1t had been matter OF wonder what had
tecome OF it, He believed that it had been
stolen.
Gen. Butler handed the Bible to the witness,
the erd OF Revelations.
Nj. Oliver Identified it as the treasured Bible
OF his mother, and said 1t had been taken With
cut consent OF the family.
Gen. Butler.-Here Is case of the recovery OF
stolen property.
Gen. Butler then asked if he knew the general
reputation OF the plaintiff for truth ana We
racity.
The defence objected, and said that as he had
not been with her since 1850 he could not know
her reputation.
Gen. Butler.-The law presumes the status of
person travels with him, or her and liar In
Go would be liar now. He would not insist on
the question.
A recess was taken for thirty minutes.
THE SPECTATORS TO-DAY.
During the recess the room was ventilated for
time, but it was not long before there was an
other Jam, and among the number OF spectators
were Two females. During the morning fash
lOnaDiy dressed lady, OF neat figure and quite
good-lo0k1ng, sat near the counsel for the de-
renee, and apparently took SO deep an fnsterest
In the case as to attract notice, and there was
considerable curiosity as to who she was but
those who knew her refused to give her name.
MIR. OLIVER AGAIN.
At 1875 O'Clock Mr.. Oliver resumed the stand
and testified that while living with patntiT she
went to Montreal, and when she returned she
brought her father, sister and an old nurse
known as Bridget or Bride.
Cross examined by Mr. Peter.-WItness now
resldes at MillersDurg, KY; was first married in
winchester to Mary Ann NewbrOugh, IL was
previous 70 1888; next married In '35 or '36 at
NeWDurn, n. c., when he went to New York in
1850 presumed she was in Newbern; separated
from her In 1s42 and got divorce from her iD
1859. It was in the spring OF 1851 he found
plalntin In the assignation house; 1t was on
thompson street, above Canal street. After
the first night met her several times there by
appointment. After taking her to Raleigh
TOOK her BACK to New York because she wanted
TO go and left her at her boarding house. Wit
ness told her In New York that II she would at
tempt TO reform her life he would take her out
to Raleigh and give her an opportunity to re-
form.
DID MR.. CAMERON WRITE THE PROMISE LETTERS?
A careful examination OF the letters offered
In In evidence 10y plaintiff and the handwriting
OF PIN MT cameron has been made, and it is found
Inat IN the letters containing the alleged
promise OF marriage claimed to be signed by
Cameron o gsS J,av lnOY1 rxhfIn In A.,