Evening star., 1894-04-03
LETTERS TO LOUISE
Continued from First Page.)


Mr.. Butterworth protested against the
case in chief being reopened. Mr.. Carlisle
followed Mr.. Wilson IN a disclaimer Of all
knowledge OF this witness and the story
she might give until last Sunday.
Judge Bradley considered the various
phases of the question, and said that it
would seem that the counsel desired to
argue as to the contents of the letter. This
perhaps ought not to be done in the pres
ence Of the jury. He quoted extensively
from legal authorities that he had examined
last night as to the admission of such evil
dence about writings which had not been
produced in court. From such reading he
was disposed to admit the testimony and
the questions that had been propounded.
The matter of Miss Lowell being allowed
to go upon the stand at this time was ar
gued by Mr.. Butterworth, who said that he
would like to delve into the authorities with
the jury out of the room, and by Mr.. Car
Isle, who took the ground that as 1t was
newly discovered evidence and In view pr
the line taken by the defendant in deny
ing that there was any correspondence
with the plainIif ill 1885, it was evidence
that might properly be interpolated at this
point. Mr.. Wilson again said that their
purpose in wishing to introduce this evil
dence here was that the defendant might be
cross-eXamined upon 1t, or else that it
should so in as evidence in chief. Mr.. Shell
by insisted that If there had been any COM
munication to the plaintiff she must have
known of it. If the letter had not been re-
ceiyed by her there was no communication
allowing her to reopen her case in chief.
The jury was not allowed TO leave the
court while all this argument was in prog
ress.
Mr.. Shelby argued against the admissi-
bility of the evidence at considerable length,
reading copious extracts from law books
to sustain his contention. Mr.. Wilson closed
the argument for the plaintiff. 1t was now
after IL o'clock.
The Witness Admitted.
Judge Bradley said that If the lattar wara
actually produced the witness could of
course, be croSs-eXamined upon it if its
verify were admitted, and if it were de-
MED, evidence in rebuttal could be pro-
duced to sustain its genmneness. This case,
however, now before the court was novel
Cne, but the authorities, Taylor evidence
for one, assert that when letter is lost
or its existence denied, evidence may be
interjected in its support. The judge read
the extract in question from Taylor and
then decided that it would be a proper
method to pursue when the party cross
examining the witness did not possess the
paper or the witness denied its existence
to interject secondary evidence to support
the paper and to lay foundation for fur
ther crOSS-eXamtnat1On OF the witness. If
this was the ground for introducing the
evidence he must decide that it was ad-
missible.
The defense noted an exception, and Mr..
Wilson then called Miss Lowell to the
stand. She said she had known Mr.. Breck-
inridge since February, 1886 She became
acquainted with him at the House of Rep
resentatives. She had an office as stenogra-
pher and typewriter during the short ses-
sion of the Forty-eighth Congress- near the
south door of the House. Afterward she
was removed to place near the room of
the House committee on printing. She had
done work for Mr.. Breckinridge,' and was
acquainted with his handwriting.
Manuscript of Letter to Copy.
II will ask you 10 state" said Mr.. Wilson,
whether ne brought you the manuscript of
any letter at the time you have indicated
for any purpose"
He did," said the witness.
For what purpose?'
ITO copy
"Did you copy it?''
81 did,"
"How?'
ION a typewriting machine"
How was that letter addressed?" asked
Mr.. Wilson.
1--WE object" came in a chorus from all
the lawyers of the defense.
MIR. Butterworth said there was no proof
that any such letter had ever been sent or
maIlel, OF received by any one.
"Before going into that, then" said Mr..
Wilson. turning to the witness, Il will ask
you to state what you did with that manu-
script and the copy.
u returned them to Col. Breckinridge."
said the witness.
What else did you do for Col. Breckin-
ridge besides writing that letter."
r. rom the time l first did work for him,
in February, 1856, until l left the Capitol,
in 1890, l frequently did work for Col.
Breckin-idge. who would come to my desk,
copying letters. addressing envelopes. etc"
What did you do with the manuscript
and copy?'
Il always returned them
Envelopes Addressed to Miss Pollard.
Witness said she had addressed some
envelopes about the time she had copied
the letter in question, and was asked what
it was she had written on these envelopes.
There was some objection, but the ques-
ton was admitted, and witness, proceeding,
said, Miss Pollard, 56 North Upper Street,
Lexington, KY
She said she kept memorandum book of
work done, and had memorandum of that
address on another book, a memorandum
of her personal expenses. The witness pro-
duced the memorandum book, and was
asked to read the memorandum relating to
these envelopes. She read the address,
Miss Pollard, 30 North Upper Street, Lex
ington, KY. 1t was written the fly
leaf o. cover of the book. she said, con-
tanning her personal expense accounts.
why did YOU make this memorandum? ?"
asked Mr.. Wilson.
Feeling sure" said the witness, that
sooner or later 1 would hear more of Miss
Pollard, and not wishing to trust my
memory, l made this memorandum"
How many and what kind of envelopes
did you address in this way?'
On several occasiorS-two or three-he
brought me single envelope to have this
address put on. On other occasions he
brought me packages-perhaps not quite
dozen. They were small white envelopes.
not such as are usually used in business
and were yellow with age"
on these she said she placed the address,
and then returned the envelopes to Mr.
Breckenridge when he called for them
Mr.. Wilson desired then to know if the
of the paper she had copied, but objection
was made.
Judge Bradley said that at this time Mr.
Wilson could not go further than the date
and the address.
"My Dear Sister Louise"
How was this first communication
brought to you ad1ressed?' asked Mr. Will
son.
My dear sister Louise" said the wit
ness
Mr.. Wilson desired then to know If he
could not go further and question the wit
ness as to the contents of this letter, for
the purpose of cross-examining Mr.. Breck-
inridge.
Judge Bradley thought the rule laid down
by Taylor would not admit such testimony.
Ihere was some more legal argument,
and Judge Bradley still held that it could
not be proved at this time by this witness
what the letter contained.
The examination then proceeded The
witress said that she found in her mem
9raACum book, containing record of work
done covering the period of the long ses-
sion OF the F'orty-ninth Congress, the name