Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1879-03-22
THE CAMERON BREACH OF PROM
ISE CASE.
g Thomas VI. Oliver Testifies.

WAsHrNGToN. March u. La the Oliver
Cameron case to-day. two letters presented
by Mrs. Oliver, purporting TO be in Gamer
on's handwriting. were admitted in evidence.
and the coussei for the plaintiff rested their
case in chief
Gen. Butler asked that the case be with
drawn from the july, claiming that Mrs Oil
Yer was to all intent. and purpose. IA married
woman.
The court reserved its decision upon the
question of the Legitimacy of the marriage,
and the effect of il upon contracting party.
Thomas N. Oliver was then called and tes-
titled:
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 Mrs. oliver at Us
born's Masonic Re.alia establishrnent-she
was there working. Went to New York
again in the spring of 81, and in company
with other gentlemen visited an assignation
house. While saiting in the parlor for the
girl, to corse in, plaintiff entered. He passed
the night with her and she gave him her his
tory She told him she had been seduced
while employed at Osborns, by a man named
Johnnie Platt, under promise of marriage.
Had baby by him. which was born alive
but afterwards died. This occurred between
the designation house. He iaadc arrange
ments for her to go South with him, he being
in search ofa vest and coat maker, and told
her that if she would go with him to Raleigh
he would give her employment and never cx-
pose her past life. She agreed and he took
her to North Carolina.
In 1851 took her back to New York and
left her She had been with him then only
three months he had nothing improper to do
with the woman while She was in North Car
/ olins. In 1852 he again met plaintiff in New
! ork and sent her to Louisville with his
nephew. When he mcnt plaintiff in 1851,
she said her age was ~ and she was not edu-
Gated. He directed his nephew to place to
board her. where lac (the nephew WAS living,
at the house of Mrs Biggert, II public board
ing housc. He directed the foreman of his
Louisville shop to give her vests to make,
and it was done. He went to Louisville in
June and found her at Mrs. Biggcrts: he
suggested that her education was imperfect,
and if snc would 90 to school he would send
her She went to school for time but was
restless and wanted to return. Up to that
, time there had been no improper relations be-
tween them. After she returned he lived
with her until June, 1850, in different places,
at which tilac he left her On Jane ), lsG0,
he married his present wife.
He never lived with the plaintiff in his
mothers house while in Louisville. His
mother had nothing to do with her, but knew
witness connection with the woman He
had girl by her named Tammc She was
born MAY 2ad. ls55. and died March 9th,
| lSj6 Was buried in the cemetery at Louis
Vile. Plaintiff put up hcadstonc with in
scription. "Tammic daughter of r. VI. and
NJ. +. Oliver" Had another child by her,
now living. She was born March l2th,
1857.
lie never said she was his wife, but she
went by the name of Mrs. Oliver. When he
first met her he grass widower. and
WAS up to 1853 whom he was divorced.
That was his second wife. Never lived with
plaintiff after lsGo, but had seen her fire encnt-
~. She had been writing to him constantly
since 1850 up to two weeks ago. He could
not make move that she did not know about
almost as soon A. himself No matter where
he went when he got to his destination he
very apt to find letter from her await
ing him.
When he quit her he claimed the child and
made several attempts to get her but failed.
, Finally the plaintiff abandoned the child He
secured possession of the child, kept her at
school seven years, and she was nov married
and respected but not known to plaintiff.
No ceremony of marriage was ever per-
forincd between min and the plaintiff by his
book keeper, He made no provision for the
maintenance of the plaintiff when he got
married, neither did he tell her of his inten-
ton to marry, because he did notthink it vas
any of her business.
lie had denied publicly and repeatedly TO
several persons before he left the plaintiff
that she was ever hi, WIFE and no time did
he call her Mrs. Oliver.