Waterbury evening Democrat., 1894-03-28
Miss PoIlard's Letter.
MrsLEYAN CoLl.EGE. duly


will fight to get before the jury, is as fol
lows:
Miss Pollards Letter.
WESLEYAN COLLEGE, July ~, 1884.
DEAR COLONEL BRECkINRIDGE-Eou letter
came TO me saturday. l am glad you told me
ii would he announcement TO come out here to
the college, for if You had gone TO ever such
little trouble to listen 10 what sometimes over
burdens schoolgirls mind you might be in
clined TO be provoked with yourself. y preach
er's opinion of little affairs of mine would cause
premature gray hairs. where your opinion
might clear away all doubts and fears and let
me be quite free hearted again. think have
prepared You for divorce case; but. listen, il
is worse than that.
If certain person should advance funds for
my tuition here at school for three years under
the promise t ut marry him at the expiration
of the time, could he do anything il l would
not marry him, but teach and refund all he had
advanccdy | know you think, why the de-
ceptiOn:
But ON no other terms will lie agree. When
girl wants nothing but good education and
means TO obtain such are denied her, what Is
she to do but take the only chance she is even
likely TO have. L liked your face. and am sure
l would like yu and if at any future time yor
are in the cit! and would care to come around
remember that home faces are always welcome,
am very respectfully yours,
MADELINE B. POLLARD.
For the first time the keen cross examin-
lI8 pow ct VI uNlSt btIS w llSOll, " lltSS
work has been awaited with interest by his
fellow lawy, -, was brought into play. 1t
was first exercised on Major Moore, the
chief of police, Who was called back to dis
pute some of Miss Pollard'S statements re-
garding the two interviews i'll his office
during which Colonel Breckenridge repeat
ed his proIHiSvS to marry her
Major Moore denied that i'll either of the
two interviews Colonel Breckenridge had
said. This is one of life'S tragedies, OF
that he had said anything about Miss Pol
lard bearing two children or being preg
nant. In neither interview had Colonel
breckenridge said she knew was mar
ried man when it occurred" nor had Miss
Pollard said. Yes | gave myself to him"
How long did that interview LAST"
asked Judge Wilson i'll cross examination.
Fifteen or - minutes"
"A great deal was said that you don't
remembers"
Yes. sir.
Answering further questions, the major
said that he had only made notes of what
impressed his mind after Il he interview was
concluded: that Miss Pollard and Colonel
Breckenridge had talked all the time, Miss
Pollard seeming excited and doing most of
the talking, while Colonel Breckenridge
seemed cool. He would not pretend that
he recalled everything. Much had been
said which he could not remember. as that
part of the conversation he had recorded
in his notes would not have occupied more
than half minute. His attention had not
| been called to the conversation for three
months afterward.
Judge Wilson and Major Moore.
The second interview, it was developed
under cross examination, had lasted nearly
an hour, had been less excited than the
OAll Of ha toll
ing,
This was the interview of the 18th OF
May, when Miss Pollard narrated that she
| lay on the sofa, Colonel Breckenridge sat
beside her. and afterward he took her
hand in his and your hand and promised
to marry hery" repeated Judge Wilson,
aiming toemphasize an old score.
Yes, sir.
| Then when Judge Wilson asked if any
| thing had been said or done to indicate
that the promise of marriage was merely
n scheme between the two parties not
made in good faith the defense was siren
uous in its objections, protesting that it
called for an opinion which should be the
| province of the jury, not of witness.
Judge Bradley admitted it, however,
and the major said nothing had been done
| of the sort to indicate a scheme such as
| had been described.
| After some minor points had been dis
cussed DIR. Schaeffer was called Mr. Will
son stirred up such cloud of verbal dust
| around the experts testimony that the
spectators hardly knew whether the letter
purported to have come from the plaintiff
| to the defendant or the reverse.
During the cross examination Mr.. Will
son endeavored unsuccessfully to make
DIR. Schaeffer assent to the proposition that
(
| from a number of letters dissimilar he had
| drawn the conclusion that the two letters
were written by the same person. He did
evoke the admission that handwriting was
sometimes so skillfully forged as to deceive
| experts.
From the word July in the contested
letter he tried to obtain an admission that
1t had been written by person having free
use of the hand, while the figures follow
ing, "1SS4," were by an unskilled, inexpert
hand, but the expert would not agree to
the hypothesis.
| Finally Judge Wilson challenged DR.
| SchReffer to point out similarities between
the alleged forgery and another letter. He
noted the words land" and suspicion"
| also the letters ''I" and ''u, " referring to
his notebook, also other similarities. While
/ he had not been told what the defense
wanted to prove by him, DR.. Schaeffer con-
cluded, he had inferred. He would not
have permitted any one to tell him that
they wanted him to testify to any particu-
lar thing.
Fun with Colonel Hay.
A brief redirect examination brought