Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-04-06
THE DEFENCE CLOSES
CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE.)


Mr. shelby said the book had been ruled
out IA evidence. and was not in their
contfol. There were he said, matters In
II OF nature which the institution TO
which II belonged might not wish to have
the record Of left here
Mr.. Wilson insisted that II was import
ant In view of the testimony that the
book should be left here. lie said that
so far as he was concerned he would give
his pledge that no one should see the
book; that IL would he kept inviolate
lie regretted To say that memorandum
left under similar circumstances by
witness and 10 whom he had given a
pledge that ~ would be kept inviolate had
got into print
MIR. Shelby said he knew nothing OF any
such occurrence.
Mir. Wilson said he referred to MISS
Louise Lowelrs private memorandum oooK'
He had told her that 1t would not De
used for any purpose except for TINS case
lie had been surprised TO see thst some
OF the contents OF that book. having no
connection whatever with the case hau
got into the public prints.
at certainly was "A gross outrage, now
ever it was zone" said Judge Bradley.
After some discussion Judge Bradley dl-
rected that the clerk take charge OF the
book.
DIR. PARSONS.
The next witness placed upon the stand
was Mrs. Dr. Parsons. She was calico
by the defence FOR purposes OF further
cross-cNaninatiou.' as they said but
Judge Bradley insisted that they had no
right 10 do so. but. as they had summon
al her they must make her their Wit
ness. Tho defence dld not IKE this ruling
and excused the witness without asking
any questions.
They then recalled Mrs Lcidy and
asked her if she had any recollection Of
ever having seen Mrs DR. Parsons, who
had lust left the room. She said that
80 far as she knew she had never seen
DR.. Parsons. but, on discrimination.
admitted that Or. Parsons might have
been 20 the asylum without her know
Ing 1t.
Or. William y. Moore. IN charge Of the
Department Of Vital Statistics in the
Health Office was then placed upon the
stand. lie stated that among the duties
Of his Office was the Keeping Of a record
Of birtns. marriages. and deaths. He was
shown copy Of a birth certificate which
was left blank and said that II was
form in use in 1855. In answer to ques-
ton he said that H. had examined the
records. but had found no entry OF the
birth OF child on February 3, 1858. at
which DIR. Parsons Oiliciated. and there
was no return made by that physician,
as compelled by law.
Mr.. f'utterworth offend to put the
blank in evidence, but, Judge Bradley
ruled It ON on THE ground that IT pos
sessed DO materially in tis case.
~TNke the witness" said Mr. Butter
worth
"Nhy, Don't see that there are any
Questions that care TO ask this witness"
replied Mr.. Wilson, In an uninterested
sort OF way. as though he did not think
the witness was of the least importance.
Then, may II please your Honor, said
This was few minutes before noon.
EVIDENCE Ia REBUTTAL.
The plaintiffs side then began TO put In
evidence in rebuttol. The first witness
called was Or. William A. COwan. OF
Pittsburg. He said he was superintend'
cnt % the Wpstern 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 was asked by Mr.. Carlisle,
who conducted the examination, If Miss
Pollard ever resided in his family, ana
when.
MIR. shelby objected 60 this testimony as
testimony in chief and not in rebuttal lie
understood that considerable OF such tcs-
timony was TO be offered and he thought
the question might as wen DE RAISED no"
as At any time
MIR. Carlisle said that the defendant ha1
offered testimony notably that Of Mollie
Shin1lcbaucr. as to the plaintiffs doings
III 1875 or 1850. and he could conceive no
testimony more proper in rcbuttal than
that Of knsman. showing where the
plaintiff was in those years.
NJ EI.llv rDuHp an argument, IN WnlCn
he discussed the nature OF rcbuttal testi-
Inony. lie said the plaintiff had, In their
Case-in-Chief. gone INTO the question OF
her Whereabouts at different times. By
tho plaintiffs own testimony they had
undertaken to show that from 1876 TO
$50 she was In ana about the city or
Tittsburc. They had done that not IN
icnorance. for the deposition Of Molie
SnuGlebauer 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
Il was to be offered in testimony, said
ne never heard such reason offered Tor
excluding testimony az not being IN
proper rebuttal. The Shindlebauer woman
had not been brought TO disproVe the
plaintiffs statement that she lived IN
Putsburg i'm 1876 and 1889, but had been
produced to prove that this plaintiff
hau been guilty Of certain SPECIFIC acts
OF misconduct. lie insisted that this was
proper rebuttal. but If 1t were not, he
thought II ever there was one that APP
pealed to the discretion Of the Court II
was this one. when a woman of the
character Of Mollie Shindlcbauer was
brought from Memphis to Lexington to
make such statements as she had. They
had a right. and justice demanded that
they should have the right. to show that
this was an unmitigated lie.
Judge Bradley said that I'm the testimony
Of the plaintiff she had gone over some
what the events of her life. speaking of
her residence in Pittsburg. but not. az he
thought. laying any special emphasis upon
that He referred TO the testimony OF
Mollie Shndlebauer. whom he referred 10
as IA disreputable woman. because. he said,
she had painted herself in most disreputa-
Bile colors.
Not" said Mr. Shelby, "at the time Of
taking this testimony"
"She said" Judge Bradley remarked,
chat she had lived q proper life for five
years" Judge Bradley reviewed Mollie
Shindlebauers testimony briefly. and said
he was of opinion the plaintiff could
properly answer il by her own testimony
or by the testimony of others. proving
an alibL He, therefore. admitted the les
tmony.
DIR. COWAN'S TESTIMONY.
DIR. Cowan's direct examination was
brief. He testified that Miss Pollard came
t. his mothers house In the summer Of
1876, and remained there continuously un-
I'll the summer of 1880. She was attend
ing public school most OF the time, going
TO school with the witnesses sisters. Mol
lie Shindebauer's testimony described
meeting the plaintiff in various places du-
ring 1ST. 1878. and later.
ON cross-eXam!natiOn by Mr.. Butter
worth the witness said he fixed the date
OF the plaintiffs coming by the fact that
her father attended the National Demo-
cratic Convention In 1876 as "A delegate
from Kentucky and died shortly after re-
turning TO mis- home. Witness's mother
received a telegram. went to Kentucky to
attend the funeral, and on returning home
brought Miss Pollard with her. He re-
cited other events by which he fixed the
duration Of her stay at his mothers
house. He remembered distinctly her be-
Ing there after his return from a trip
he had made 10 the West i'm 1879.
Before the cross-examnaton was con-
cluded the usual recess was taken.
After the court opened this afternoon
the cross-eXamination of Or. Cowan was
continued by Mr.. Butterworth. The wit
ness stated that he was younger than the
girls in his family. and did not attend
school with them.
Mr. Carlisle desired to ask question as
10 the moral character OF Miss Pollard at
this time but it was not allowed, on the