Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-03-12
WON EN- EXCLUDED
Continued from First Page1

Continued from First Page)
all he asked was opportunity Of inspecting
them IN the presence of the clerks
Mr.. Butterworth asked il Mr.. Wjlso, oh
Jected to having his client stand up and de-
scribe them.
Mr. Wilson said he did not propose tc
nave his client describe them when the
! time comes for her to speak," he began. tu,
was interrupted
VIII Cat "a Figure In the Case.
| Mr. Butterworth said that these books
would cut figure in this case Suppose -
ne began. the plaintiff presented set OF
books TO this asylum where she ;as. We
deny it. But suppose she lid present it,
ought she not be able to describe
/ Here Mr.. Butterworth was interrupted by
I the judge, who recited what he recalled of
| the proceedings on Friday relative to tie
books.
Mr.. Butterworth, proceeding, said that
/ she might be able TO describe them after
she had seen them. He believed there was
| a good reason for requiring this descrp-
I ton.
! Mr.. Johnston. for the plaintiff, said his
/ suggestion TO have the books sealed up was
made in response to very improper sug-
J gestion from the other side. The question
now was whether the remarkable inGcrse-
ment and condition on the package was to
( stand.
The Courts Order VIII Stand.
Judge Bradley said that the order made
by the court to place them in The hands Of
the clerk would stand.
The clerk is authorized. thea" said Mr.
Wilson, ''to allow to inspect ;hem?''
Judge Bradley assented to this and Clerk
Hodges proceeded to break the seal and IN
tie the package of books.
" PM hot tba do
PENDANT would object to certain dispositions
taken without sufficient notice.
An Array of Dispositions.
Mr.. Wilson rose then and offered to read
one OF a somewhat voluminous array of
dispositions.
Mr.. Butterworth objected, saying they
had not had opportunity to examine the
deposition and that the notice required, I'M
der the rules of the court had not been
given.
Mr.. Carlisle said this was one of the depo-
sitions referred TO by Mr.. Mattingly Fri
day; that the dispositions arrived here Sat
urday morning by express, and had been
with the clerk since Saturday morning.
The dispositions in question were handed
to Mr.. Butterworth and he and Mr.. Brock
inridge and Mr.. Shelby spent a minute or
two examining them. Mr.. Buttcrworth said
that they would object because no notice at
all was served that these dispositions were
to be taken. There were notices attached
to the dispositions, but there was no evil
dence of service, and, in point of fact no
notice had been served
"Oh, yes. there was" said Mr. Wilson,
and he walked over and showed Mr.. But
terwnrth what he considered evidence of
notice. Then Mr.. Butterworth and Mr..
Shelby examined the papers again for a
few seconds.
Mr.. shelby Objects.
Mr.. Shelby. then, rising. said they OBJ
iected because the deposition was taken
without due notice. March G, he said,
notice was issued in Lexington KY, and a
copy handed to him. The papers showed a
similar notice had been served upon others,
to be attorneys for Mr.. Carlisle |
statements were appended. however, from
these persons to the effect that they were
not attorneys of record.
Mr. Shelby said he himself had been re- !
4uested to appear for the examination of GER
tain particular witnesses and his authority
was restricted to that;he was instructed that
ne had no authority TO take other deposit /
tons. In order To keep faith with the plain /
III, these statements disclaiming authority |
had been filed with the officer who took the /
opposition AT that time the defendant was |
IN washington. 1t was an impossbility for I
him TO be personally present at the time
liked for taking the dispositions. and also
impossible for him to be communicated
with and to send authority for any one to
represent him as attorney of record. Mr..
Snelby then read the certificate of the
notary public who took the deposition which
set forth that the defendant was not pres
mi at the taxing of the deposition, and no
me representing him. He said that il did !
not appear that the deposition had been
written oy the magistrate, or deponent, as
required by statute. Another ground of OBJ
eStlon was that the dispositions were trans
nitted to this court neither by mail or mes Il
'enger, but by Adams express although I
ne dispositions bore a certificate by the
iotary that II had been sealed and mail
ID by him March g.
The notice served had said the ,lefapd,n+
ma MS attorneys were entitled to be Ires-
mt ana cross-examine witnesses. This no.
ice was served on the afternoon Of March
; he CMr. Shelby was just about leaving
or Washington. Mr.. Stoll had already
zone. 1t would have been absolutely i'm
possible for this defendant to have left for
ashlngton after that notice was served
md been present at Lexington when the
lepositions were taken. If he had gone
here 1t would have been impossible for
llm 10 be present here Thursday morning
wren the case was set for trial. For these
itions.
surprised mt Lack of Frankness
MIR. Carlisle said he was .omewhat sur
'rised at Mr.. Shelby's lack of frankuess
this matter. AS a matter of fact notice
lad been given on the Sd of March to have
hese dispositions taken on the 9Th but, ow-
ng TO distractions, the taking of the depo-
itions had been delayed until the eth of
larch.
MIR. Butterworth said that affidavits {
ad been filed as to the facts relating TO | )
ne taking of the dispositions
MT. Carlisle thereupon read an affidavit |
rom Edward p. Ferrall that notice had Z
cen served on MIR. John T. Shelly who
ad responded that he had no authority 10 !
ccspt service for the defendant in the :
natter and that his authority had been
mlted TO the eXamina ton Of certain wifi =
esses. The affidavit set forth the difficulty i
ne aftiant had in securing some one To /
axe the dispositions, all applied to having
echned, either on account of hIr SheIbv's .
-sponSe or Tor other reasons. One did ROT !.
ant 10 get mixed up in the case Another
ecllned on the ground that he had read
wv IN the office of defendant and his
-aVis) brother was an applicant for n fed =
raj position and he did not care to draw =
oWn upon himself the criticism of the Ge- I
,ndant and his friends. Finally, il had -
cen necessary to have John 3. McI.oush- =
appointed as notary in order TO take
ie depoSltlons. Further. the affidavit said
lat Shelby, StOll and Desha BRECKENRIDGE
"a appeared and examined other witnesses b
I'd were entered by the commissioner az =
-torneys for the defendant When he hsd
'ad the affidavit Mr.. Carlisle called atten
on to Mr.. Shelby's statement that he was u
structed by the defendant not to receive II
rvice When the notice was served March r
Mr. Shelby was not leaving for Washing n
n pat when the notice of March q was n
'rNed ne was leaving for Washington 10 | N
IKE part In the case before this cnurt ! nj
ne notice had been served un), thn psr / a
MS VINO mad been Representing 4bic do