The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1894-03-29

lue SSCOAu uepOSltlOu I6au Dy Az
LOruey Soil was by Lena schmidt,
who had been employed for eight
years in the Norwood convent, who
! had no recollection of woman in the
convent in 1885, under the name OF
! Louise Wilson, and had never seen
Madeline Pollard until last December.
She had then been present at The in
teFview between Sister Agnes and the
plaintiff, but, as the former had testi-
fed, failed to identity Miss Pollard as
one she had ever seen. According to
her membrance, Miss Pollard had
said OF her motive for the suit, II did
it for justice and to disgrace Mr..
Breckenridge"
The deposition of Dr.. w. f. De
Courcey, ply scian at the Norwood
convent was objected to by Mr.. Car
! Isle on the ground of immateriality,
but admitted by the Judge The
physician testified that he did not
know Madeline Pollard or Louise
! Wilson, but there had been girl in
the convent named Wilson in 1884 5,
whose first name he did not remember,
and whose face he would not recOg-
nize. He had looked over the books
| Va lLO lltLll anu lOullu III AOOOAN Va
| Louise Wilson. At times a special
physician attended patients at the
hospital if they so requested. One girl
who gave birth to a child had her1ace
yelled because she clairued that DIR.
De Lourcey knew her. There had
cen 500 children born at the asylum.
DR. De Courcey had not been cross ex-
amned.
The deposition of o. G. Brown,
president of Quinn Valley college in
Ohio, and son of the president oil Wes'
leyan seminary, which Miss Pollard
attended, was read. He was young
man in those years of Miss P0llard's
schooling, and from the records of the
school, testified that her bills had
been paid by James G. Rhodes. One
note by Rhodes for 1925, given in 1885,
had Teen paid only in small parts.
The depJnept had often visited
Rhodes to press tor payment but tie
latter had begged off, representing
that he was hard up, that
the expenses were greater than
he had expected, etc. Conver-
salons between Brown and Rhodes,
testified to were objected to by the
plaintiffs attorney and the objection
sustained. The answer to "concerh.
! ing his understanding of the relations
between Miss Pollard and Rhodes"
was excluded also, on the ground that
; the basis Of that understanding was
| not given. An interesting question
WAS raised over the admission of the
testimony OF Mr.. Brown, baised on
the records of the school kept by
others than himself, to show the at
tendance and absence of Miss Pollard
and the usual exception being noted.
| Mr., Brown remembered that in the
spring of 1884 Miss Pollard had left
school to visit her home on account of
the death OF her sister, but this was
also excluded on the same grounds.
! Witness had been personally ac
! uuainted with Colonel Breckenridge;
remembered that he had called at
the school once. Miss Pollard had
been in the habit Of claiming relation
ship with most of the prominent peo-
pie of Kentucky, among them Mr..
Breck inridge and Senator Black burn.
| This boasted acquaintance OF hers had
| grown into joke at the school, so
| that the visit of Colonel Breckenridge
being unexpected, has impressed it,
self upon him as confederation OF
| her claims. Witness remembered
that Colonel Breckenridge had taken
Miss Pollard driving that evening
| The question as to the feeling about
Miss POIlard's return to the school
was excluded on objection. BY the
scholars Miss Pollard had been
iokingly called Madeline Vivian
| Bill Breckenridge Joe Black burn
Pol ard.n
After the noon recess Judge Brad
ley announced that the court would
adiourn tonight until Monday morn
| my on account of Good Friday.
"What sort of looking man was
Rhodes?" was one of the questions
read by Mr.. Stoll.
"Oh, we don't care what Rhodes
looked like"
"But we do" responded Mr. Stoll.
Mr.. Browns reply was that Rhodes
looked like farmer, just an honest
old farmer. He had never heard any
| thing Of the relations between Miss
Pollard and Professor Overmeyer, ex-
cept the statement in the letter to
Wessie Brown that she miss Pollard)
was c,nsumed by an undying love
for him. Witness testified that ac-
cording to his recollection, based on
his diary, Colonel Breckenridge had
not visited Miss Pollard on Aug. 2,
and had never visited her but once.
He had been criticised for permitting
Miss Pollard to go riding with Mr..
Breckenridge by those at the school.
Another interesting point was rails.
ed when Mr.. Carlisle began to read
the cross examination proposed to ad-
NIT portions of it. The defense OBJ
iected to the omissions, and Mr. Car
isle explained that he only wished to
admit that part of the cross examina-
ton which referred to matter IN the
direct examination excluded by the
Judge. After short wrangle Judge
Bradley decided that plaintiff could
admit any part of the deposition and
if relevant matter was omitted the de.
Tense could read it, but held that the
court could not compel either side to
admit affidavits. In the cross exam
jnation it developer that Miss
Pollard had been considered az
school "a very nice girP
and a Upright girl" Mr. Brown
| in redirect examination declared that
| MI D,IIord yuas old enough when in