The Portland daily press., 1892-10-29


thing.
Mr.. Pease says he knows not one
fact which will contribute TO the case.
If Mr.. Pease knows no motive where
are the jury to find it? This of itself is
enough to let this case fall lifeless to
the ground.
Passing to the plaintiffs case / say
that the contents of the letters dlsprove
and condemn the plaintiffs case. Why,
gentlemen of the jury, man trained to
the ordinary writing of letters, it is safe
to say that he could not write them
They are not such as Mr.. Burrowes
would have written had he wanted to do
what he is charged with doing. Those
letters are as dull, lifeless, stupid, as
they are nasty. | appeal, for the
standard of ordinary business men, that
the inry will not convict a business man
of such stupidity! Now 1 want to read
the third letter and ask if any man,
especially any business man, would write
such a letter:
"Mrs. Pease was justly wrathfnl and shut me
out with anger and scorn ere any negotiations
were reached. Will Mrs. Pease turn to Mat
thew IS: q, %; also Luke 81: 80; also II CO.
rinthians q 7; also Aphesians A: 80; and over
all others read Romans IL; A. Although con-
trary to my remarks to you, the contents OF all
the letters were false. Let God judge rather
than man, why they ever reached you. Now do
not withdraw your sympathy but have regard
for a fellow being in distress. My faith is
sound and strong that these letters will never
be exhibited by one trust, although wronged.
Ii you will allow me private audience, VIII
you stand on the post office steps at s O'Clock p.
m, the 2oth today, Read |, Corinthians, to
8 and give me hearing. This mu It not be
spoken of as warn you that you do not know
what torture is or what power possess.
Should ANYTHING happen to your children, then n
indeed would your heart be wrung. But all
will be well, if you will follow your heart, which
: " 49, : "a FRIEND"
Ere any negotiations were reachedn'
Now ere" is a good word; but i'm
agine any business man using it? Inn
agine it! Would any business man be
guilty of putting on his hat " ere he
went out?
Also notice the sentence, 'sMy faith is
sound and strong that these letters will
never be exhibited by one | trust, al
though wronged." Imagine business
man writing such letter to the wife OF
the superintendent of a rival screen
company, when she had already turned
him once away from her door!
Now, gentlemen, the proposition is
that Mr. Burrowes wrote that letter to
Mrs. Pease.
Why after, according to her story, he
had gone down there and begged for his
letters on his knees, here he is writing
another of the same kind and putting it
into her possession!
Again, he asks for private interview
on the post Office steps. Why, it she
had wanted to trap him, when she sent
for Mr.. larrabee, why didn't Mr.. LARA
bee advise her to go down on to the steps
and meet Mr.. Burrowes?
They could have had so witnesses
there and trapped him beyond doubt.
say that the substance and contents
of these letters disprove the entire case.
1t is supposed that in case at law
that certain of the physical laws Of the
universe do not have to be proved. 1t is
left to the intelligence of the jury to
know those things, and when witness
states things contrary to the general
lines of conduct of men, the jury are ex-
pected to know those things and allow
for the statements as they would for
statements in relation to the laws of the
physical universe.
What need of expert testimony when
there are such facts as these. | should
hardly have cared if every expert had
been against me. | appeal from the
Judgment of experts, over them, to the
grand general facts of this case.
The substance of
Mrs. Pease's Testimony
Mr.. Pease allows to remain uncorro-
borated by any word from him. He
sends his wife here, poor woman as she
is, to make display of herself, and then
sits there and says by his silence that he
knows nothing of this suit which he has
brought
Why, she says that about 8 o'clock on
the evening of May 81, 1891, she saw a
carriage pass under the light on the cor
ner of Bracket and Gray streets and APP
proach the house, driving in the gutter.
She saw man rise in the carriage as it
approached her door and throw a letter
wrapped around penstock on to her
steps. She says-these are her very
words-that the "bright electric arc
light on the corner of Bracket and Gray
street shone on him, and she recog-
nized him as the man whom she after
wards identified as Burrowes.
Here we have cloudy, rainy night,
Mr.. Burrowes driving up in a carriage
with the top thrown back-a way in
which he never used it-a man whom
she had never seen, but since has seen,
and identifies him as Mr.. Burrowes.
This alleged recognition must
fall. On such night an
undenied recognition could not be
positive. But we have the absolute and
unequivocal denial of Mr.. Burrowes that
that he did the act charged. But we
have testimony that that electric light
was not there on that night She says
she saw the bright electric light behind
Mr.. Burrowes as he approached and that
electric light was not there until many
days afterwards.
Mr.. Burrowes denies that visit, and the
oath of any man must settle it against
such testimony as that if the rights of a
man are to be safe in civilized society.
Now she says that Mr.. Burrowes called
on her July 18th last, to see about the
letters. She says she had not received
any anonymous letters for year. Why
should he go to see about letters that
had been slumbering year? He went to
her, pleaded with her and quoted scrip
ture. She said it should be confidential,
they came to solemn agreement, but as
he turned to go he said tauntingly that
the letters were true, whereat she said
the agreement was at an end.
How absurd that he should have gone
there, when he knew that Pease would
know it! Why not have had his counsel
do that errand for him!