Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-12-04
THE GORDON-LESTER SUIT
The Prosecution Rests and the Defense In
PRODUCES Its Witnesses.
Mrs. Gordon Not Permitted to Testify
The Defendant Denies All
Allegations.

Fulton r. Gordon, then proprietor of the
Hotel Lincoln, at 10th and II streets north
west, against Wharton e. Lester, a men,
Der of the bar'of the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia. charging Lester with
alternating the affections of Mrs. Lydia
Geneva Gordon. the compliments wife.
Miss Georgia Howells of 6o6 E street
northeast, daughter Of Mrs. s. d. How
ellis, who was landlady of the house on NJ
street, where the Gordons resided during
the spring of 1888. and Miss Florence
Howells corroborated the statements made
on Wednesday last by their mother,
describing in detail the alleged visits of
Lester to Mrs. Gordon in her bed room on
two occasions previous to July /, 1893.
When the trial was resumed this morn
ing the plaintiff called a witness Mat
thew TiGhe, reporter on the Times. lie
testified that he prepared the article IN
the Times. respecting Mr.. Gordon's amend
ed bill, and that MIR. Lester complained
that 1t was libellous. The witness. on
cross-examination, stated that the mat
tiers in the amended bill were given him
Before IL WAS filed by Mr.. Gordon. and
that Mr.. Gordon saw the article before 1t
was published. and witness understood
that Mr.. Emig, Mr.. Gordon's counsel, was
10 revise IL.
Counsel for the plaintiff then announced
that they rested their cases. when Mr..
Darlington. of the defendants counsel.
asked why the witness. Robey, had not
D6en Called
Mr. French replied that they would per-
haps call him in rebuttal.
Then" exclaimed Mr. Darlington, ut
was mOnstrous outrage for counsel for
the plaintiff to tell the jury In their open
ing that they expected to prove impropri-
eties on the part Of Mrs. Gordon. and then
not call the witnesses"
Counsel for the plaintiff thought that
they were not bound to produce the wit
ness at that stage of the case. If they pre-
ferred to call in rebuttal. but Judge Brad
ley remarked that having made the state
ment they did in their opening they pro-
duce the witness before going further.
The witness could not be found. however,
and testimony on behalf Of the defense
was begun.
Evidence for the Defense.
AS their first witness the defense called
Gen. VIM. Birney, who stated that the lat
ter part of last July he saw Mr.. Gordon
and Mr.. Lester in consultation at the lat
ters office. After conversing a while Mr..
Lester called witness in and asked him to
listen to a proposition made by Mr. Cor
don. The proposition was three-fold. First,
that Mr.. Lester should advise Mrs. Gordon
to effect a reconciliation with her husband.
Second. that Mrs. Gordon should receive
81 900 in settlement. and, third. that IL both
the preceding propositions were refused.
then he (Gordon) would bring the charge
of adultery and press 1t all he could.
The Rev. DR.. Addison was the hext wit
ness, but his testimony was merely to the
effe, that he had teen misQuoted when he
had been represented as saying that Mr..
Gordon accused his wife out of spite. He
said that Mr.. Gordon had wanted to he
come reconciled with his wife.
Chas. w. Blackburn, a notary public, tes
titled that in April last Mr.. Gordon asked
him to take Mrs. Gordons acknowledge
me mt to a deed. But Mrs. Gordon refused
to sign It, and In a few days her husband
sued her for divorce
Chas. L. Flinders. private detective.
said that the day previous to the filing of
this suit Mr.. Gordon requested him to
carry a note to Mrs. Gordon, in which Mr..
Gordon tcld his wife that he would con-
sent to divorce on the ground of his
cruelty, but not on the ground of adultery.
but that IL she did not so agree he would
at once file charges of adultery. Witness
refused to take it to Mrs. Gordon, but did
take 1t to Mr.. Lester. her attorney. There
a Mr.. Mason n Richardson made a steno-
graphic copy Of it. The proposition was re-
fused by Mr.. Lester, said the witness. and
in a day or two the present suit Was filed.
Mr.. Richardson testified that he made
the copy of the note. and Mrs. Emma
Walker of Baltimore testified that in July,
1892, Mr. Lester was at her house In Col
lege Park, Nd, being at home the nights
of July 1. .. and 4. The husband of Mrs.
Walker corroborated her testimony, and
then Mrs. Mary II. Wise, the mother of
Mrs. Gordon, was called to the witness
stand.
Mrs. Wise testified that her daughters
child was born September Z. 1898. Mrs.
Wise also said that her daughter visited
her every day but Friday and Sunday
while the latter lived en- NJ street. Mrs
Gordon. she said. had no servant while at
Falls Church in 1891.
Sellman Ely, who resembles. Mr.. Lester
very much. testified to visiting Falls Church
about the times mentioned in the present
suit.
Mrs. Gordon Called.
Counsel for Mr.. Lester then called Mrs.
Gordon, the wife of the plaintiff. AS soon
as she had taken the witness stand, coun-
sci for the other side objected on the
ground that Il wife cannot testify for or
against her husband in such case.
Before the matter was decided a recess
was taken for half an hour.
After recess Judge Bradley disposed of
the objection made to Mr.. Gordon's testi-
mony. Mr.. Darlington thought that in such
a case as this, where wife and mother
was charged by her husband with infldel-
ity. the wife should be permitted to tes-
tify, especially II no objection was made,
and he could not comprehend how man
could object to the mother of his child tes-
tifying where her honor was in question.
Judge Bradley decided however, that
Mrs. Gordon could not he allowed to testi-
fy holding that 1t would be violation of
the well-known rule against a wife testi-
flying for against her husband.
Mrs. Gordon then left the stand and Mrs.
Fannie Richardson, who lived next door to
the Gordons on Nj street, and her daughter
testified that they never saw anything i'm
proper in Mr.. Testers conduct when he
called on Mrs. Gordon or elsewhere.
Defendant on the Stand.
The defendant then took the witness
stand. He said he first met Mrs. Gordon
in March, 1887, when both attended the
Spencerian Business College. They became
acquainted subsequently. and he had called
upon her. both before and after her mar
rage.
Mr.. Lester stated that he was one of a
chestnut party which visited Mrs. Cor
dons house at Falls Church, Va, in the
fall Of 1891. He never had been there be-
fore and never since. He never remained
there over night, and never saw the col
ored girl, Fannie Marshall, there.
The nth Of July, 1893, he called upon
Mrs. Gordon, continued Mr.. Lester, she
having requested him to call for the pur-
pose Of drawing up her will. She was at
that time In a delicate condition, a con-
dtion apparent to everyone, and desired
to make her will because of her fears He
called about $50 in the evening and re-
manned for some time While there the
Misses Richardson came. Four days later
he called with the will.
An Emphatic Denial.
Being asked the direct question, Mr. Les
ter emphatically denied having ever had