Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1894-04-07
"Butyou did drink eggnogg to ex

10 drlnklDS whisky. l na0 never
touched so much as thimbleful before,
and it made me feel very ILL.,"
When she was asked about the local.
ity of rooms in Mrs. Hoyt's house,
where she had spent a part of every
night in Colonel Breckinridge's room,
she said to Mr.. Shelby, commandingly,
| Now don't interrupt me"
She thereupon testified that she had
roomed upstairs with another young
lady, but the other people had gone to
bed early, and supposed she was down
stairs, studying her lessons. 1t was
necessary for her to 60 down one flight
of stairs, through the sitting-room, and
up another flight, to get into the
Colonel's chamber. The Colonel when
he came into the house, slammed the
door, as signal that he had come in.
1t was not by any popularity of the
slam, but the slam itself, by which she
recognized his entrance, as there was
no one else who came in late. Miss
Pollard was dismissed after she had
told about these things, and the an
nouncement was made that the plaintiff
rested its rebuttal.
For sur-rebuttal, the defense recalled
to the stand Mrs. Lidie, the matron OF
the Washington Founding Asylum.
Mrs. Idle said that she had talked
with Aunt Mary, the old colored VIC
man, who had been on the stand, anu
that she was not the woman who
brought the child, because the woman
who brought it was large black wo-
man, and had given the name OF Char
lotte Thomas.
On cross. examination, Mr.. Wilson
managed to emphasize the fact that six
years had passed, and that the colored
woman had not remained more than 10
minutes at the asylum when she brought
the baby.
Then Col. Breckenridge was recalled
TO deny that he had bought the ribbon
TO put on The work basket. He was
again asked whether he had made the
statement 10 colcred Mary lancey that
he wanted her to come aud cook for
him and Miss Pollard when they went
to housekeeping in The fall. Objection
70 re-opening this matter made by Mr..
Wilson was sustained Objection was
also made to reopeuing the matter OF
their relations at Mrs Hoyt's, and
Judge Bradley declared that the de
PENDANTS denial Of that was already
broad. but permitted the Colonel TO say
that Miss Pollard had never been in his
room there with his knowledge. He
denied also that Mrs. Lowell. the Capt
tol type writer, had ever written let
ter in which be made reference to q
manuscript sent him for criticism.
This ended the testimony, to the re-
lief of every body, for it had been drawn
cut in tiresomc way for several days.
The attorneys arranged to submit their
requests for instructions by the court
to the jury on the legal aspects of the
case to-day, and then the jury was ex-
cused until Monday.
Arguments to the jury will begin
Monday morning, so that the case will
probably close by Wednesday night.
There will be two speeches for each
side. Mr. Calderon Carlisle will mako
the opening for the plaintiff: He viii
be followed by Col. Phil. Thompson,
formerly member of Congress from
Kentucky, and Major Benjamin But
terworth, ex-member from Ohio, for
the defense, and ex-Jndge Jere Wilson,
ex member from Indiana, will give the
final plea for Miss Pollard. The pre-
vailing impression that Col. BrecEin-
ridge would address the jury is mis-
take.
TO.DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.
At II o'clock this morning Mr.. Cal
deron Carlisle began to read in Judge
Bradley's court voluminous prayer on
behalf of the plaintiff in the Pollard
Breckenridge suit. Major Shelby fol-
lowed with prayers for the defendant
and then argument was entered upon.
There were few spectators, and
very little interest was manifested in
this purely technical phase of the case.
Neither Miss Pollard nor Col. Breckin-
ridge was present during the hearing.
The instructions which Mr.. Carlisle
asked the court to give to the jury in
behalf of the plaintiff set forth that
the promise given was such as to con-
stitute a binding contract; that the
plaintiff had married no one and had
committed no breach of that contract,
and that even if the assertions made
were true (Which were denied), as to
relations sustained by the plaintiff with
other men, this would not nvalidate
the contract. That the defendants
contention that the agreement of mar
riage between himself and the plaintiff
was not intended to be kept, but was
entered into for purposes of deception,
must be sustained by a preponderance
of evidence in order 10 have weight
with the jury. That whether
the defendant promised marriage
to the plaintiff in good faith
or not has no effect on the plain
tif7s claim, as she received the promise
in good faith and performed her part of
the agreement. That if the jury find
that the defendant was secretly mar
ried on the Doth of April last and there
after made a promise to marry the
plaintiff, and by this breach of contract
so made the plaintiff has been injured
pecuniarily, socially or otherwise. so as
TO affect her means of gaining a liveli-
hood in the future, the jury must bring
in verdict for damages, and the abil-
ity or inability of the defendant to pay
damages does not affect the plaintiffs
right to sue. The prayers Of the plain
tiff were If in number.
Mai. Shelby read the prayers for the
defendant These were contained in
eight brief paragraphs.
In the argument that followed, Mr..
Nv, = JohDcoD onnned for tho Dlain-