The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-03-22
The oliver. Cameron Case.

mensons of the5Circuit Court were sorely
taxed this morning by the immense concourse
of persons assembled to listen to the reSump-
tion Of proceedings In the case OF Oliver vs..
Cameron. The argument, which was begun
yesterday afternoon by Gen. Butler, on the
admission of two letters offered by plaintiffs
counsel, was continued at the opening OF the
court by Mr.. Peter, Of the counsel for plain
tiff. lnlhis argument Gen. Butler had claimed
that, the letters not having been pr we'd to
having been written by Senator Cameron,
were clearly inadmissible, and added that the
defense would prove to the entire satisfaction
of the court that the letters were forgeres.
Just as Mr.. Peter was about to embark in
the argument, Judge Cartier decided that as
Mrs. Oliver had testified that the letters were
In the handwriting of Senator Cameron, they
remarks tending to impign the
veracity Of Mr.. Peter, plaintiff counsel.
Mr.. Peter, In strong terms, denounced the
manner of the doughty warrior OF Fort Fisher
fame, and repelled the attack In a spirited
manner.
Judge Cartier said that there was no neces-
sty for such an ebullition of feeling, and In
fact there should be no feeling in the case, ex-
cept indignation. contempt and regret.
A letter, purporting to have been written by
the Senator to Mrs. Oliver, inclOsing one to
Secretary Bristow, recommending her posi-
tion and another letter, dated Harrisburg,
telling her that he would find her n better
home than Washington, and hoping that she
| Peter. After calling witness named Crary,
without receiving a reply, Peter announced
that the testimony in chief for plaintiff was
closed.
Mrs Oliver was called to testify, and swore
that there was o contract signed by which
her counsel were to receive one-third OF the
amount gained by her. She could not tell
what had become OF the contract. There
was nothing said to witness about her bear
ing the expenses OF the suit, and all the
money she had paid was eleven dollars. This
was paid to the officers: but counsel had re-
| ceived nothing. The money was, however,
| given to Messrs. Peter Il Darnell.
Gen. Butler raised the point that plainti #
| could not maintain her case, as according to
her OATH she was the wife OF Thomas Nj.
Oliver.
Judge Cartier denied the motion.
Thomas nj. Oliver, the reputed husband of
| the plaintiff. was then called by the defense,
and testified that he, In the spring OF 1850,
visited New York to buy goods. He first saw
| the plaintiff at OSborn's store, where masonic
regalia was sold. She was working there.
! He went to New York again In the fall, and
/ inquired for plaintiff, but she was absent. In
| 1851 he again visited New York, and went, in
company with Others to an assignatton
house, and there met plaintiff. Plaintiff then
told witness that she came TO America IN
| 184S with her father; that they went to Mon
treal to i've and thence to New York; that
while in New York she had been seduced by
man named Platt under promise OF mar
riage, and that she had had child by Platt.
She told witness that her name was Mary Ann
McCaffrey, but she did not mention the name
of the Duke Of Ormond. Witness remained
| in New York fourteen days and saw plaintiff
| frequently Being in search Of a sewing wo-
man he made arrangements to take plaintiff
to North Carolina and took her there. He
never knew of her being adopted by the fam
lily of Stewards in Petersburg. The mother
| of witness never saw plaintiff until the wit
ness took her to Raleigh: He thought plain
tiff worked for him in Raleigh about three
months. He took her back TO New York at
the expiration of that time and there left
her, but what became OF her he could not
tell. His relations with plaintiff ceased when
she returned to New York. In January,
| 1861, witness went to Louisville, KY, to enter
in business leaving his mother In Raleigh.
In March, 1852 he met plaintiff again In New
| York and sent her to Louisville with his
nephew. In 1851 plaintiff told witness that
| she was nineteen years old. She was entirely
uneducated. In Louisville plaintiff boarded
with Mrs. Biggert where witness also board
ed. The mother OF witness was not in Louis
vile. Plaintiff made vests for witness
in Louisville After working some time
he sent her to school to be educated. Plaintiff
told witness that she had been baptised and
reared as a Catholic, and he first sent her to a
Catholic school, but she became dissatisfied
and he then sent her to a Methodist school at
Bloomfield. Witness was trying to reform
plaintiff and during her stay In Louisville
as far ds witness was concerned, plalntln was
perfectly pure. Pending the examination ol
Mr.. Oliver the court took a recess, and the
examination will be resumed this afternoon.
4 rx.> - N ~ sss cha HnpIaA