St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-09-24
he Denies EVERYTHING.
THE BRECKIRRf7GE-P7LLARD BREACH
OF fE0MiSE CASE.
THE CoNGREssmAN.s STORY.
He Never Made Love or Proposed
TO Pretty Madeline-sheS Sought
his Advice About Marrying
Old RodeS-He First Met Her
on Train in Kentucky, When
She Introduced Herself.

WASHlNGToN.Sept. 23.-Another step
has been taken in the Breckinriige-
Pollard case. Congressman W. G. p.
Breckinridse this afternoon filed his
answer 10 the declaration made by Miss
Madeiln V. Pollard In her suit for SOU
QUO for breach of promise.
Mr.. BIeckinridge denies the first
count Of bliss Pollard'S declaration.
which states tnat he proposed marriage
To her i'll August, 1892. The second
count, declaring that The congressman
Made a second proposition of marriage
on May II. 1898. is also denied. The
answer 10 the third count is given with
emphasis. as follows: For plea to the
third count Of the declaration tie de-
tendant say: he never promised, as al
legged in the said third count Of said dec
Iaratlon; that in the spring of 1854, the
defendant, being on the tram from Lex
lnEtnn to Frankfort, was
ACCoSTED BY a YOUNG WOMAN
between twenty and twenty-five years
Of aye, who introduced heraeif To him as
Miss Madeline Breckenridge Pollard,
saying that her father was such al ad-
nlrtr of john 4. Breckenridge that h.
named her after SAID Breckinrldge:
that subsequently defendant received
letter from the plaintiff sa, ing that she
was IN great distress anu desiring his
legal advice. and asking him 10 See her
al WESLEYAN collage in Cincinnati,
Wllich the defendant answered WAS in-
convenient, upon Wuirh she notified
nm that the uIa.er about VIII ch waS d S:
tFes>ed was an engagement To marry
which Dad assumed condition worse
than divorce suit, amt reiier tting her
request 10 See him personally; that tile
defendant did see the plaintiff
at said cnllege and she gave
him a full recital of her
relations with one James c. Rudes, and
thereupon tlle defendant advised Her To
cOhSuinInate the contract between her
and SAID RDdes by marriage. and subse-
qutntiy. att"r a iuli conversation with
the said Roles, the defendant renewed
his advice; and The defendant denies
mat he then or at anV other time or
piace, by wlleS or articles ana
PROTESTATiONS OF AFFECTION,
or oN ANY utner mcans. attempted to
take advantage of the youth ana inex-
perience OF the plaintiff. lie denies
mat lie then or at any Other lime St
duc"u the said plaintiff. and he denies
That the plaintiff was at any time preg-
any time prevented her from going
aUroal or iTuIn entering upon anY ca
reer that plaintiff desired To enter upon,
or thaI II vas through any prUteSlalIons.
Influence ur request of the defendant
that tue plaintiff tailed either to 20
abroad ur 10 enter upon any career
Sne desired, and he denies that
there Was AT any time any
agreement contract or understanding
OF marriage between the pla min and
the Defendant, and the plaintiff knew
during her entire acquaintance with the
defendant that marriage between the
plalntltf and defendant was Impossible.
The intmaIlUn yesterday that the plea
nf Congressman BrecKIuridge in answer
10 the suit of Nils, Pollard would be That
0i the general issue, which means a
simple delial of the alleged promise OF
Contract, came fIOlm sunrce winch left
no doubt as to such being that deter
mined upon. Hence The extended
answer or plea to the tlird count of Miss
POilard's declaration was matter ef nu
little SURPRISE today 10 those cogniZant
OF the situation yesterday There is
IIttIe prospect tnat the case will be tried
THIS year.