Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-03-30
sister. who was dying with consumption

| 90 come 10 see her on "A matter of busi-
ness NJ the Wesleyan College. Witness.
in reply. said substantially that II would
! be inconvcnieni for him to come to see
her. and suggested that II she would state
her business he would be glad TO advise
| her.
state whether you received another let
ter from the PLANTING
Il dld." said Mr.. Breckenridge.
THE REPUDIATED LETTER.
Mr.. Butterworth here handed the wit
| ness letter the famous letter repudiated
| by Miss Pollard. and asked him 10 ex-
anime Il and see II he recognized il.
1T would be affectation for me TO eX-
anime IT, said MIR Breckenridge, Il do
recognize IT,"
| Mr. Wilson objected TO any testimony
on the presumption that he received IL
from Miss Pollard.
| How soon after You received that let
| ter" asked Mr.. Buttcrworth. "dd you
meet the plaintiff II at all?"
! II saw the plaintiff" said MIR. Breckin-
ridge. con The ist OF August. and re-
! cniyed this letter the latter part Of Au-
| gust lie said be had received the let
| ter IN the usual way In his mail He had
a conversation with Miss Pollard at the
| Wesleyan College on the subject matter
/
| had used language similar 20 that in the
| letter. and made some remark about its
! being something worse than divorce
| case.
| Mr. Butterworth here offered the letter
| ~ testimony, arguing that sufficient
| ground had been laid for its introduction.
| Mr.. Buitcrworth read "a number OF au-
| thoritics. He urged mat II was compe-
| tent 10 give the letter to The jury that
| 1 4
mittclly those Of Miss Pollard.
MIR. WILSON'S OBJECTION.
Mr. Wilson, in replying. said that he
was expecting nt the close Of the testi-
mony Of the experts the letter would be
| offered in evidence, ana had prepared
| himself 10 meet the question. They were
! not. he said. dealing with case where "A
| suit had been brought upon an instrument,
I the authenticity Of which was denied,
| where genuine writings might be COM
| pared with that IN dispute. In such cases
| IL was well settled that comparisons could
| Dee made by the court and Jury, This
was case whore an attempt was made
| % introduce into the case as evidence q
paper Of which the authenticity was dis
putod. The difference between the cases
vas a marked one.
Mr.. Wilson said that IN the present at
titudo Of the case the paper would rot
| he introduced. nor could IT ba so intro
duccd until the court had passed upOn
! 10 ana declared 1t competent evidence.
/ Air. Wilson referred 10 the fact that the
/ letter had been brought out in cross-ex-
animation of the plaintiff, and she had
ropuliatcd it. Then they brought on the
experts. Neither Of them pretended ever
having seen the plaintiff write. but testi-
fed merely On a comparison OF writing.
vFh4 b4f -
mony. put against the plaintiffs positive
denial. made such II case as 10 render
the letter competent testimony.
As TO EXPERT TESTIMONY.
Mr. Wilson then turned his attention to
the subject Of expert testimony on hand
writing quoting first from an opinion
bv the late ChieC-Justice Cartier stat
ing that OF all kinds Of evidence this was
the most unsatisfactory. weak. end de-
cr,Iit lie quoted other similar opin-
TONS but Judge bradley remarked that
this had reference 10 the weight OF the
testimony. and not 10 its competency.
Mr. Wilson said that his point was this:
! They had called on the plaintiff to tes-
! tfy as TO this letter and she said she
lu not write il. These two experts
! thersupon testified that ia their opinion
| she dil. Tn question was then whether
|
! tent testimony as % I<rmit 1t 10 BE- given
| & a jury
| ln one Of the opinions read ny Mr.. VIII
! SON the expert whose testimony was
| under consideration was T.. T.. Hay, who
| was one Of the experts IN the case. lie
| argued that ia this case the testimony
J was so utterly weak and decrel,lt that
| 81 would not make paper admissible in
the face # the direct testimony Of the
Plaintiff The paper must be shown. ho
Nlaim.4. primo fdcie 60 be the writing OF
~" plaintiff
.udr. Bradley decided to admit the let
ter % evidence on the statement a. the
defendant that ne had received II and had
mentioned it 10 the plaintiff. without con-
tra.iiction or correction Oh her part, and
also on Oh. testimony IF experts. He
would have admitted il. he said. on the
testimony OF the experts alone The com
parson of the disputed letter and the
letters aclnoW lodged 10 have ben writ
ten hy Miss Pollard might be made by
the jury.
NEWSPAPER ENTERPRISE.
II seemed to him that all this contro-
crsv was more a shadow than a sub
stance. because this letter had been pub
liehcl "a the newspapers and had been
probably read by the Jury. Newspaper
enterprise was a very good thing. but il
was sometimes carried too far That was
enterprise with a vengeance Anywhere
else il would be punished rs a contempt
~ court. II was contempt Of court
committed within the very precincts Of
the court. where the copy was made. He
OH not think that the newspaper men
who secured that letter knew they were
doing harm, but it was an act of gross
improperly and ne hoped il would not
hc rcpcatci II II We're he would punish
the offcndcr Its publication might cause
the ease H. be decided one way or the
other. and the wrong thus done could
not be- riehted.
Major Butcrworth then read the dis
puttl letter as heretofore published.
BRECKINRIDGE RESUMES.
Colonel Rreckinridge resumed his inter
rupted story Of his meeting with Miss
Pollard at Wesleyan College. Il was
standing in 4 window when she came in.
She shook hands and said she supposed
She had rather astonishcd mo 10y her
statement Of the gravity Of the case. /
said. ioliingly, that ! presumed ii was not
80 grave az a divorce suit. We sat down
near "a window looking out into the
streets. she on a divan and ] on chair.
Sh. then told me the circumstances of
h.r trouble with Rhodes. and that was
the first | had heard Of II. Up 10 this
time / did not know who the mother of
the plaintiff was. but ! knew who her
father was. She told me that she lived
with her aunt who married York Keen.
I knew who she was then. | said l had
KNOWN York Keen at school and subse-
ousntIv as a soldier in the regiment OF
nv brother, Robert breckenridge, and
liked him.
"She then told me about Rhodes. She
said she liked him and respected him
They had made a contract by which h.
,cos IN nay for her education on con1i-
tion that she should marry him. She
said Rhodes was pressirs her for the
money she owed him, and that unless
She paid him he would compel her tc
marry him. and asked if Rhodes could
compel her TO marry him. l told her
that knew Of no law which would
compel her TO marry Rhodes. ! asked
her why she did not go to her mother
about II. and she said the contract had
caused much unpleasantness In hei
family and she could not bring 1t be-
fore nor mother | asked her why sh,
did not 20 10 her grandfather or her
uncle. hut she said she could not. she
spoke with such IA grave face that
suspected something more serious was
the cause Of her refusal TO marry him
She drew out her handkerchief and actei
IN a very nervous way. and | walked
over n the window. She came over &c
the window, and after she was stand
/ az. - OK