Evening star., 1894-04-05
MYSTERY IN A NAME
Continued from First Page.)

einnati was met by testimony going to
show that she had not been at that insti-
tuition, but child had been born to an
other woman there. He thought it compe-
tent now to show that there was an effort
TO fix the identity of some child at the in
stitution now in question as her child when
1t was not.
Judge Bradley sustained the objection TO
Mr.. Shelby's question.
Mr.. Shelby asked If when the child was
taken to the institution the colored woman
who brought it told the name of it. OBJ
lection was made and overruled.
The witness said tine woman called the in
FAINT by the name OF "Dietz Downing"
Mr. Shelby asked if any child other than
Dletz Downing, who was born in February,
lSSs, died at that institution in April, 1888.
After some objections and argument the
witness took the record, and, after looking
1t over, said there was not No other child
born in February had died in April.
Mr.. Shelby then offered again to read the
slip Of paper pasted in the book, but objec-
ton was again made and sustained, and
exception noted.
Mr.. Shelby then offered in testimony the
entry In the book referred to, and all other
entries relating to children brought to that
institution that month. Objection was
made and sustained. and exception noted.
ON cross-examination the witness said
she rad never seen Miss Pollard at the
institution. but she might have been there
Wlthout her seeing her. This ended Miss
Leidy's examination.
Mr.. Wilson then asked that the record
book produced by the witness be placed in
the custody Of the clerk, where they could
have opportunity of examining it.
Mr. Shelby said the book had been ruled
out as evidence and was not in their con-
troll. There were, he said, matters in it of
a nature which the institution to which It
belonged might not wish to have the record
of left mere.
Mr.. Wilson insisted that 1t was important
IN view Of the testimony that the book
should be left here. He said that so far
as he was concerned he would give his
pledge that no one should see the book;
that 1t would be kept inviolate. He re-
gIetted to say that memorandum
left under similar circumstances by a wit
ress and to whom he had given a pledge
that it would be kept inviolate had got
into print.
Mr.. Shelby said he knew nothing Of any
such occurrence.
Louise LowelPs private memorandum book.
He had told her that it would not be
used for any purpose except for this case.
He had been surprised to that some
of the contents of that book. having no
connection whatever with that case, had
got into the public prints
TT certainly was a gross outrage how
ever it was done" said Judge Bradley.
After some discussion Judge Bradley d-
rected that the clerk take charge of the
book.
DIR. Parsons and Mrs. Lefdy.
The next witness placed upon the stand
was Mrs. DIR. Parsons. She was called by
the defense 'for purposes of further cross
examination as they said, but Judge Brad
ley insisted that they had no right to do 50,
but. as they had summoned her. they must
make her their witness. The defense did
not like this ruling and excused the witness
without asking any questions
They then recalled Mrs Leidy and asked
her If she had any recollection of ever hav
ing seen Mrs DR.. Parsons, who had just left
the room. She said that SO far as she
knew she had never seen DR.. Parsons. but,
on cross-examination admitted that Dr.Par-
sons might have been to the asylum with
out her knowing 1t.
As to Vital Statistics.
DIR. VIM. D. Moore. in charge of the de-
partment of vital statistics in the health
Office. was then placed upon the stand. He
stated that among the duties of his office
was the keeping of record of births, mar
riages and deaths. He was shown copy of
a birth certificate which was left blank and
said that it was a form in use in 1883. In
answer to a question he said that he had
examined the records, but had found no
entry of the birth of a child on February
3. 1883, at which DIR. Parsons officiated, and
there was no return made by that physician,
as compelled by law.
Mr.. ButterwOrth offered to put the blank
in evidence, but Judge Bradley ruled it out
on the ground that it possessed no materi-
ality in this case.
Take the Witness" said Mr.. Butterworth.
''Why, don't see that there are any queS-
tions that l care to ask this witness" re-
piled MIR. Wilson. in an uninterested sort of
way, as though he did not think the witness
was of the least Importance.
The Defense Rests Its Case.
'"Then, may it please your honor" said
Mr.. Butterworth, I'VE rest our case here"
This was a few minutes before noon.
Evidence In Rebuttal.
The plaintiffs side then began to put in
evidence in rebuttal. The first witness cali
ed was DR.. William A Cowan of Pittsburg.
He said he was superintendent of the West
ern Pennsylvania Hospital. He had been
superintendent there for nine years, and was
called doctor by courtesy. He was first
cousin of the plaintiff. His mother was
sister of Miss Pollard S father.
The witness asked by Mr. Carlisle,
who conducted the examination, if Miss Pol
lard ever resided in his family and when.
Mr.. Shelby objected to this testimony AS
testimony in chief, and not In rebuttal. He
understood that considerable such testimony
was to be offered, and he thought the ques-
ton might as we'll be raised now as at any
time.
Mr.. Carlisle said that the defendant had
offered testimony, notably that of Mollie
Shindlebauer, to the plaintins doings in
1873 to 1850, and he could conceive no tes-
timOny more proper in rebuttal than that of
a kinsman, showing where the plaintiff was
in those years.
MOllie SLindlebauer's Testimony Re-
ferred to.
Mr. Shelby made an argument, in which
he discussed the nature of rebuttal testi-
mony. He said the plaintiff had in their
case-in-chief, gone into the question of her
whereabouts at different times. By the
plaintiffs own testimony they had under
taken to show that from 1876 to 1880 she
was in and about the city of Pittsburs.
They had done that not in ignorance, for
the deposition of Mollie Shindlebauer was
then filed in the court, and they knew its
contents.
Mr.. Wilson, referring to the statement
that the Shndlebauer deposition was in
court, and that the plaintiff should there
fore have anticipated it, assuming that 1t
was to be offered i'll testimony, said he
never heard such a reason offered for ex-
cluding testimony, as not being in proper
rebuttal- The Shindlebauer woman had rot
been brought to disproVe the plaintiff S
statement that she lived at Pittsburg in
1876 and 1880, but had been produced to
prove that this plaintiff had been guilty of
certain specific acts of misconduct. lie in
sisted that this was proper rebuttal, but IL
1t were not, he thought If ever there was
one that appealed to the discretion of the
court it was this one, when a woman of
brought from Memphis 10 Lexington to
had a right, and justice demanded that they
a n hat nc