Evening star., 1894-03-26
PROVING AN ALIBI
The Defense in the Breckenridge
Case Read Dispositions.
HIS OCCUPATIONS In TEE YEAR 1884
Judge Bradley Would Rule Out
Filthy TestimOnyif He Could.
HIS ADVICE TO NEWSPAPERS

representative BreckinrIige was resumed
this morning after a recess, so far as the
jury and the public is concerned, since last
Thursday The judge and the lawyers lad
session last Saturday IN private when
the question Of the adnissibility of certain
depositions offered by the defendant was
argued Judge Bradley announced bis de-
number dwindled down during the morning.
Miss Pollard was not preseat today. There
was the usual crowd Of spectators but the
number dwindled down during the morning
as the proceedings. while Of a character
which the defense regarded as important
TO that side of the case. were prosy and un-
interesting. Judge Bradley during the
morning announced that IL hs could do SO
ne would exclude some Of the oepositions
ne mad examined because of their flthIness.
he suggested to the representatives Of
newspapers present that when they are
read In court they should for the sake Of
the community and the families Into which
they go, withhold the details of this dis
gusdnS testimony from publication. The
cepositions in question are a number which
are to be read attacking the reputation of
the plaintin- 1t was thought today that
the defendant would go on the stand to-
morrow or Wednesday. The depositions
read this morning-some of which were
tediously long-were submitted for the pur-
pose OF showing that at certain times in
the spring and summer of 1854 Mr.. Breck-
mridge was busily engaged in trying law
suits at Versailles. Winchester and Nicho-
Iasvile. KY There was testimony also to
his whereabouts at other times. This testi-
mony. 1t is understood, is to be pieced to-
gether in argument, and compared with
the plaintiff's story. In other words, the
testimony is offered to prove an alibi for
ar Breckenridge, so far as some accusa-
tons made against him by the plaintif are
Concerned
Judge Bradley's Decision.
When the court was called to order JuGge
Bradley at once referred to the objections
TO depcsitions argued On Saturday. One
objection, he said. went to the right of the
Defendant to take any depositions de bene
es5e. under the act of Congress in force in
the District That objection was based on
the language of section S63, Revised Stat
utes or the United States. taken from the
Judiciary act OF 1883. That language ap-
pears TO limit the right TO take such depo-
sltiOns to parties To civil causes pending
In circuit and district courts of the United
StateS- Inc Ju1lciary act OF 1883 cOnfers
Ihat right in different and broader Ian
guaSe. 1t gives the right to any party in a
clVu cause pending in any district in any
court Of the United States. The provisions
or that act remained unchanged up to the
TINE OF the completion of the revision OF
ire United States statutes. 1t cannot be
disputed that this court and its predecessor
the old Circuit Court of the District of CO.
lumbia, was a court of the United States
A. was claimed, however. that inasmuch
by provision for repeal embraced in the
Ohitel states, that where any portion of
an act OF Congress is embraced in the re-
VISION, such portion of the act as WAS NOT
SO eLloraced was repealed, and in this
case the power or authority conferred in
the statute in question was condne,I 10
cIIcult anu CiStrlct courts The fact how
ever. that this power had been exercised
Dy thlS court ne would feel IL incumbent
upon him TO maintain that right until the
question was determined by a court of
higher authority However. 1t was his
opinion that the necessary authority exist
ed There were two grounds for this be-
Ler OF the court. The repeal OF The iudici
ary act, he believed. would not deprive this
court or the authority II and the old Cir
cult Court Of the District had exercised
in Kendall aSt- the United States il was
distinctly held by the United States Su-
preme Court that the power of the Circuit
Court of the District of Columbia 70 issue
writs Of msgdamus was derived from the
acts or Congress comforting such power
and also from the old laws of Maryland
The Sweeping Objection OyerruIed.
The court was of the opinion that il the
power existed in this court prior to the
lewiston OF the statutes it was not affected
by that revision. Independently of that.
the fact that the power and Jurisdiction Of
n circuit court of the United States were
expressly conferred upon this court the
power Of such courts to have depositions
taken de bene esSe existed IN this court
Hhe right Of individuals 70 take such de-
Positions a right subject to his own
will They were beyond and outside of the
control of the court; but when the right to
read them In evidence was claimed then
IL became a question of the right of the
power duty of the court to permit them
10 be read. Now. all such power and juris-
diction were expressly conferred upon this
1al ion of t.
seemed the court had not only the power
but it was the duty of the court TO permit the
oepositions to be read, II they were other
wise unObjectionable. Therefore the court
pyerruled the objections touching the
Dover Of the court to hear them.
Mr.. brands Deposition Admitted.
The court then reviewed briefly objections
made 10 deposition Of one Brand, because
he had refused to answer certain questions
In cross-examination. The deponant had
been asked where he first met certain
woman, who he sail. had introduced him
70 plaintiff. He had declined to answer on
the ground that the woman was married
and he did not care To expose her. The
commissioner had told him he need Lot
give the name This, the court said, was
construed by plaintiffs counsel direc-
uon that he should not answer the CUES
con- Subsequently. however. the witness
was asked the name and said he did not
know 1t. or had forgotten ii. This. the
ensU cred. or that the depOnent vas clearly
ly1ng- He did not think the objection held.
IN another place the witness had testified
10 riding with the plainuin and had been
asked as to whether he had improper rela-
Tons with her. and declined to answer.
The commissioner stated he did not think
the witness could be forced to answer it.
Inc court could not conceive what Objec-
ZION the depOnent, who was a married man,
mad % answering the questions, as his teS-
uInony concerning his visits to disrepUt-
able women. and his course Of life showed
MIN TO be utterly Indifferent morally. The
court did not think the objections made
were sufficient to exclude the deposition.
Judge Bradley considered similar Cbjec-
uons made to other 1epOsItiOns and over
ruled them He said the weight oc the
oepositiOns. evidence. was question
Tor the jury.
Dispositions Excluded.
The deposition Of Jonn O'ToOie, the court
said. was objected to as hearsay, sc far as
IL related 70 material matters. The court
sustained this objection and excluded the
OepHslJlon- The court excluded for the
same reasons the dispositions Of DR.. Lewis
am Dr- Green The objections to the depO-
tIl-h " .lFs. Miller The court CVerru.Ci as
"'-l--' H+l SAID that elections Iui-Et lie