Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1880-04-09
The WetmOre Charges Against Ad.
miraI Porter.

Yesterday afternoon. In the case OF Lieutenant
II. s. WetmOre against Admiral d. ID. Porter.
before Judge Cox, in Circuit Court, No. O. there
were some interesting developments, for which
parties had been anxtously waiting for since
the commencement of the trial. This is suit
10 recover 81. l65 alleged TO have been Illegally
retained from the plaintiffs pay by the defend
ants orders and sent to the divorced wife OF the
former. Messrs j. s. Blankman. Warren Stone
and BIT. Hanley appear for plaintiff and MeSSrS.
X. T. Merrick ana j. j. Darlington for the de-
feDdant.
LIEUT.. wErMORR CROSS EXAMINED
Lieutenant WetmOre had been On the stand
all the early part OF the day, as stated in THE
STAR yesterday, and his ss-examination, by
Mr.. Merrick, occupied the latter part. He denied
having seen the following letter:
''Offee Of the AdnitJni Washington, D. c.. May
81. 1s55.-Dear Sir: Mr.. II. s. Wetmore has made
monthly assessment OF $50 of his pay to his
daughter, Miss Kate Wetmore. WIN YOU please
retain the amount and send check. payable to
her order, to 1856 Girard street, Philadelphia
Pa. the check 10 be sent On presentation OF Mr.
WetmOres account certified by me. Miss Wet
more VIII notify you In case she changes her
address. Yours, very truly,
DAVID D. PORTER
'To Pay Inspector Gilbert S. Thornton. L. s. A.,
Wetmore claimed that in 1871 after the time
covered by the suit, Porter obtained him place
as clerk to commodore Beaumont on condition
mat he paid him 500 down and S25 per month
TO send &c his divorced wife'S child. Porter hal
said TO him, IF you deceive me In this matter
IN haunt YOU" He regarded the admiral as his
thought he was more friendly TO the other
people"
FOR DEFENCE.
Gen. Cutter. pay inspector of the L. s. army
certified that Porter had no power to coerce
Wetmore in the disposal OF his pay.
Mr.. Alden, secretary TO the admiral testified
hat Wetmore dictated the letter above set
orth.
ADMIRAL PORTER TOOK THE STAND
and denied that he had cOerCed WetmOre or re-
quested Kim TO sign his vouchers before sending
Ia no ont
to him because he found Wetmore was playing
into the hands OF friend named Clinton, in the
stationary accounts. He had done great deal
for this man, and did not think he would be
alive now but for him. About Wetmore's family
troubles he had nothing TO do. He had the
checks sent by Alden for Wetmore's con-
Venfence, and would do it tomorrow for any
OFFICER. Wetmore never protested. but asked
him to do it. OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES Of Wet
more'S divorce. but only from him. on being
shown letter OF his to Wetmore abiding to
an interview with Mrs. Wetmore regarding her
divorce, the witness exclaimed: Il object; this
has nothing to do with the case" He. however
acknowledged those letters of his to WetmOre
were genuine, and they were marked by the
clerk. He said that he had been threatened
that unie6s lac paid s. 900 they would go in the
papers.
MIR. Merriek here said he would not have libel
added TO biackmail if he could help it, but was
checked by the court. At the conclusion of this
testimony MI. MeTrick made motion 10 dismiss
the case.
NEW LONDON. July %, 1sI4.-Dear sir: en-
close your pay accounts and shall depend on
your h0H0i' to send Mrs. W. 500. as | think il
nothing more than just that you should DO. l
DO not know how that affair has progressed.
but ii II ended this month il is the last payment
Will exact from you. When arrived in Phil
adelphfa / found her in arrears for Hates
schooling, all OF which paid Off, and you can
do no less then send her $50. / don't know
where they are but suppose letters will reach
ner II directed TO last place OF residence. Now
don't GlSappOint me in what have entrusted to
you, and il YOU don't want to communicate With
her let Mr.. Thornton (DaymaSter) send her
cneck. You can 60 west but | could not give
you orders. as there is nothing in that direction
that would Justify it. Let me hear from you
about The affair. and speak OF it carefully SO
that no one will understand if ii should be
opened. Yours, truly, THE ADMIRAL.
Under date August 26, 1874. from Prospect
Netmore contains the following clause: ~ re.
commend that you allow and pay the 800 this
month. will make 1t up to you in orders SO
you will lose nothing in the end" A second let
ter nom the same place dated three days later
states Mrs WetmOre expects to leave for San
Francisco with her doctor second huSbandl on
September 3D. and asks Wetmore to send the
500, which would be the last he would ask him
10 send. letter under date December 10, 1873
claimed to have been sent by Mrs Wetmore to
Porter, was offered TO him for Identification, but
he denied that he had ever seen it. 1t opens:
My Dear Friend-I write to acknowledge yours
OF this morning, with check for SIS, which re-
turn 1Of your Endorsement. as it is made out to
your order. Twas agreeably surprised when
received it, for with all your previous favors |
consider it rightfully yours, but suppose you
VIII arrange all that with MIR. WetmOre.r she
speaks in this letter of 1.-The arrangements you
have so kindly induced him TO make. aud when
could be left in Porter'S hands. 1t Is signed
With much love, very sincerely yours, Resale
D."
TO-DAYS PROCEEDINGS.
This morning the defence withdrew. after
some discussion the motion made YESTERDAY 70
dismiss the case, and Lieut.. WetmOre was called
70 the stand in rebuttal. He testified that he
did not. as stated by Admiral Porter, dictate
the letter OF May 3lst, 1885, that the publication
or the letters in the case was made without his
knowledge and consent, and that he was much
chagrIned when he saw them in print ana
came at once from New York to this City 10 as
certain who gave them TO the press. and found
that 1t was the work OF an over-zealous friend
DECISION OF THE COURT.
Judge Cox decided On the prayers submitted
by plaintiff S counsel that Admiral Porter was
not the superior officer OF WetmOre and that
there was no legal duress exercised by Porter in
requiring Wetmore to pay over to his divorced
wife and her daughter the sums stated in the
declaration. The plaintiff submitted to nom
suit. This VIII allow him to bring another suit.
and as Mr.. Merfick, defendants counsel. an
nOunced, that il such suit was brought he would
plead the statute Of limitations It is under
stood Wetmore will sue in New York, which Is
his legal residence.