The Washington times., 1894-04-04

would be an attempt, under the guise Of 10
buttal, to prove the case In chief. More ar
gument was made by Mr.. Wilson who held
eliminated because It came out in cross
examination.
Half an hour had been consumed by this
argument when Judge Bradley decided the
point, saying that there could be no doubt
about the admissibiity Of the letter itself II II
was in existence, as basis Of cross-examina-
tion. Although O novel case confronted the
court. the authorities seemed to be that where
a paper had been destroyed or lost proof Of
its previous existence could be interjected. II
seemed to be proper since the cross-examin-
ing counsel said the paper was not in his
possession and the witness denied knowledge
of it, to interject proof Of its existence 40 q
basis Of cross-examination.
Thereupon Mrs Louise Lowell took seat
In the witness box, and said that she had
known Col. Breckinridge since February,
1886, having become acquainted with him at
the House Of Representatives where she had
an office to carry on business as stenogra-
pher and typewriter, In the corridor by the
door Of the Committee on Post Offices.
Ibid you do work for Col Breckinridse9" Nj.
Wilson inquired.
"Did he bring manuscript Of letter to your
"He did, and copied IL In typewriter"
"How was that letter addressed|
II object" Interrupted two or three Of the
Breckinridge attorneys, who protested that
there was no proof OF the letter having been
mailed, but Judge Bradley said to sustain the
objection would be to nullify the purpose of
admitting the witness.
The manuscript and copy had been re-
turned to the colonel, Mrs. Lowell continued.
From 1886 to 1880 she had copied manuscript
addressed envelopes, and done Col. Breckin-
ridges private correspondence and congress
sional work, always returning the manuscript.
"Now what was ON those envelopes?" continued
Mr.. Wilson.
..Miss Pollard, 76 Upper street, Lexington, Ken
tricky"
"And how do you remember thatY'
~ kept a memorandum book in which noted
the address"
"Have you the book?'
~ have" she said, and the book was passed
around for inspection of the lawyers.
"Feeling sure that sooner or later would hear
more of Miss Pollard and not wishing to trust TO
my memory made that memorandum" she ex-
planned, and continuing said: "He (BreckinridRe)
brought me two three envelopes separately,
then package of q dozen small ones yellowed
with age and not such envelopes as business
man would use"
The question Of the substance of those let
ters was objected to and the objection was
sustained for the present. The first COM
munication, said the witness, was addressed
to my Dear Sister Louise" and when Dir.
Wilson urged that testimony of its contents
should be admitted Mr.. Butterworth returned
that there was no proof that it had ever been
mailed or received, reminding Mr.. Wilson
that it was the ground taken by him regard
ing the alleged forged letter OF Miss Pollard's.
VI now give you notice "a you have that letter
to produce H." said Mr. Wilson to the defense
show can produce the letter II sent il to the
plaintih?' Col Breckinridge inquired in reply,
Mr. Wilson remarked in his inimita-
BILE way; ''you and will have q little CONVERSE
tion after awhile"
The witness, continuing, recollected that
she had copied letters for Col. Breckinridge
nearly every week, but she could only prove
having done fifteen or sixteen.
The judge having ruled out examination
the contents of the letter, Mr..
made a brief cross-examination,
asking Mrs. Lowell where she had worked,
and for how long. She had kept a record Of
the work she did for Congressman, with the
amount received, in an account book. She
had an independent recollection OF the ad-
dress OF Miss Pollard since the matter had
made very deep impression on her mind.
"Are you acquainted with Miss PollardY was
asked.
~ never saw Miss Pollard until this morning"
In her books she had merely entered the
amounts of work done. the name of the party,
and the amounts charged, SO that no Con-
gressmen need waste worry for fear that the
ledger will rise up to get them in trouble.
Col. Breckinridge did not bring manuscript
to be copied at the time he gave Miss Pol
lard's address. She had never communi-
Gated to the plaintiff her knowledge OF the
case had not volunteered Information TO the
lawyers or any one else, and did not know
how they ascertained that she had written
them; had often been questioned regarding
the work she did at the Capitol, and had
that she did such work for many
people.
Col Phil Thompson and Major Butterworth
put their heads together beside the witness
stand and handed the account books to the
witness for her inspection, with the result
that no date before January, 1887, was found
in one, and February, 1856. in the other. The
lrst book contained the Pollard address.
The redirect examination developed the
fact that the Ierterto My Dear Sister Louise
was the first work done by the witness for
COL Breckinridge and had been brought to
her in January, 1856. The first envelope to
Miss Pollard was addressed in March or
April, after two or three similar letters had
been copied for the colonel The first charge
20 the colonel in the other book was March Is,
1856.
The witness having departed with her COM
Danion. Col. Breckinridge came to the stand
and Mr. Wilson asked him il he had ever seen
Mrs. Lowell.
This person who has Just testified. Oh, have
seen her." said the colonel, although do not
know her name"
What kind of work?'
Every little"
~ asked what kinI"
"When / was in a hurry dictated letters to
ler"
Ibid you every carry her manuscript to copy'
II don't recollect"
"Will you say you did not?"
"No."
Any manuscript which she might have |
copied. the colonel said, had been thrown |
.side or destroyed, but he reiterated in fiat |
erms his denial of the previous day Of having |
delivered to her manuscript addressed to |
My Dear Sister Louise" taking issue with |
he witness who had just left the stand.
Mr.. Wilson asking whether that letter had |
lot contained a reference to the disparity of |
lge between writer and his dear sister, a |
harp controversy between him and Mr.. But |
erworth was precipitated. the Quaker lawyer |
that it must first be shown that |
uch letter had been mailed and received, |
dr. Wilson retorting that the plaintiff had |
estified that she had received typewriter |
etters from Col. Breckinridge and destroyed |
hem.
Turning from this point Mr.. Wilson secured |
in admission that Col. Breckinridge had |
.iven Mrs. Lowell letters to copy, but the |
witness denied that he had given her Miss |
'ollards address in 1856. although he might |
lave done it in 1887, when he was sending |
Ter civil service papers.
"And speaking of civil service papers, re- |
marked Mr.. Wilson, "did you write Miss Pollard |
n 1885,, asking her to send you on postal card |
IL application for some civil service papers l
nder the name OF "Mary SMITH"