National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1879-03-22
The wldnw,s suit for pamngos.

when the Circuit Court convened yesterday
the case of Oliver VS.. Cameron was continued,
General Butler wanted Mrs. Oliver to take the
stand again and produce the stipulation or
agreement between herself and Peter aud Oar
nellie, her attorneys This provoked dis
pute among counsel The court ruled that, as
she had testified that she had copy Of it, it
ought to be produced, az the reporters notes
were not available ut that time. Tho matter
was temporarily laid over. The two letters
addressed to the plaintiff, signed with the
name OF the defendant, aud pronounced
fougercs by the dcfcuse, were submitted In
evidence, and the couascl for plaintiff stated
they would rest their case in chief
Mr.. Darncillc then produced q copy OF the
contract between the plaintiff and her counsel
Mrs Oliver was recalled TO the stand by
General Butler and testified that she had made
q written contract hv which her counsel were
to receive one.third Of the amount recovered.
She could not now find the paper. She had
paid 81 toward the expenses Of the suit. 4
copy Of the contract was read.
General Butler desired to put in evidence
without reading all the letters admitted by
Ms. Oliver to have been written by her. %.
lection being made, permission was not granted
General Batter again raised the point that
the plaintiff could not maintain her action, for
the marriage in Kentucky was valid and 20 all
intents aud purposes she was married
woman, having lived with tho man five years
rs his wife and hal three children by him.
The court reserved its decision unon the lc3it-
im1cy of the marriage, upon which General
Butler called Thomas NJ. Oliver as a witness
for the defense. When he was about to take
the oath, Mr.. Darueille said, stop! | want
him sworn on his roirdre.' eff you object"
said the court, "on the ground that he is the
husband of the plaintiff, will very quickly
dispose of this question and dismiss the suit
The objection was promptly withdrawn.
DIVERS TESTIMONY.
Mr. Oliver, being sworn, testified that in 1856
lie was doing business as a merchant tailor in
Raleigh, n. C. lie met the plaintiff for the FIRST
time in the spring of that year in O5born's
Masonic regalia establishment, in New York
city, where she was employed. The following
spring he again met her in house Of ill-repute
in New York city, aud his intimacy with her
began ut that time. She stated to him that in
company with her father and sister sho came
to this country Fl IN ireland in lS4S, landing
in Quebec whence they had drifted to Mon
trcal, and fually to New York. She gave the
name of Mary Ann McCaffrey and stated
that she had been seduced under prom.
ise OF marriage by LII ---ynunn
man named Platt. He offered to take her
South and give her employment IL she would
reform, aud she accepted his offer. She re.
NAMED with him in Raleigh for a short while
and then returned to New York. Meeting
her again in March. 1852 in New York. he
Sent her to Louisville. Soon aiterward he
sent her to Catholic convent at Portland
Ky, and from that place TO the Methodist
school at Bloomfield. Up to this time there
had been no improper intimacy between them
as he was trying to reform her, After she re-
| turned from Bloomfield, in August, 1854, and
from that time to juno, 1860, when he mar
ried his present wife, they cohabitod together
| in different places. The plaintiff hat
| been writing to him continuously since 1S6
| mp to two weeks ago. He had made many at
tcmpts to get possession of the child, and final
| " succeeded in April, 1867, since which tim
! he has kept her ont of the mothers way. ii
| denied that any ceremony of marriage wa
ever performed between the plaintiff and him
self lie identified the Bible produced by th
plaintiff rs tho family Bible kept by hi
mother while she was living The witnes
was cross.cxamincd by Mr.. Peters, but nothn
new ELECTED. The examination Of Oliver COY
cred many points in his personal history no
| material to the case, and he Contradictc
nearly all the statements made by the plain
| tin in reference to her life in the South, whcr
she claimed to have passed as his wiIc.
The further herring of tho case WIS post
poned until Monday next.
COLONEL FITzHUGH CoNTRADICTs MR.
OLIVER.
Colonel Fitzhugh, in q communication t
THE REPUBLICAN, contradicts the testimony
| Mrs. Oliver where she duplicates him in hC
transactions. lie says that in 1876 Mrs. OF
yer came to his house for table-bOard, brin,
ing with her for reference a complimcntar
letter for the rector of the Epiphany ChurCl
In q short while she asked him to give I'll
name of reliable attorney, as she repr
scented some friend in very important Gus
who desired the best of counsel. Ignorant
the nature of the suit, he gave her the NAM
of Messrs. Darlington u Darlington. Ate
ward on learning that they had refused
enter the suit, he for the first time found tn
Mrs Oliver wished to sue Hon. Simon Camera
for breach of promise aud from that time 81
ceased to be boarder at his house. lie fu
Their states that Mrs. FitHhugh never address
q letter to Mr.. Cameron on the subject of IL
suit or any other subject and the letter pu
porting to have been written by his vito is
forgery. The only conversation he ever hi
with Mr.. Cameron about the matter was whe
he called on that gentleman and told hi
he would hold him personally responsible
anybody over called at his house inquiring f
Mrs Oliver. At that time Mr.. Cameron pr
tested his innocence and dsavowed that !
had ever given any ground for the suspicion
For confirmation Of his statement he refers
Mr.. Cameron and the Messrs. Darlington.
~--
a Magnificent Eight-StOne Cluster