The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-04-04

a.
| ten letters for him.
[ On cross examination. Mrs. Lowell said
she had written Miss Pollard S name and
/ address on the fly leaf of her little memo
I rdudum book because she thought that
/ she might have to write the name again
/ in her work and she wanted TO remem-
/ Der II for that reason. Mrs. Lowell said
| she kept no record Of Miss Pollard's name
/ and address in her regular accounts, nor
/ aid she keep a record that she had
/ written a letter for Col. Breckenridge be-
ginning My Dear Sister Louise" -
NOT SHOWN IN HER ACCOUNTS.
There was nothing in her regular ac-
/ count book to show whether the work
! done for Col. Breckenridge was lecture,
or letter, or a speech. The number Of
| envelopes addressed TO Miss Pollard was
/ about u al one time, and few scattering
| ones before that time. There was moth
| ing in her record, she said, TO indicate the
| character Of the work
Were you in the habit of making
memoranda OF your work like this ad-
| dress of Miss Pollard's2"
| mo, / was not.
why did you put down Miss Pollard's
name and address,"
Because of the unusual character of
the work. evidently referring TO the
time-stained ENVELOPES which Col Brock
inridge brought her to address.
A SINGULAR DISCREPANCY.
Mai. Butterworth endeavored to find
out how it was that she became known
as the writer of the Sister Louise let
ter but the witness was unable to tell
him. She had mentioned the fact to
friends that she had written letters for
Col. Breckenridge. Mrs. Lowell exam
med her note book again and said in an
swer to Mai Butterworth that its
al loot aAHaHa IL.
a year after the Sister Louise letter is
said to have been written. The witness
said she did not know how it came that
she had put Miss Pollard's name and adj
dress on the fly leaf of this book early in
1856, when she did not begin to enter
memoranda in it until the next year
To Judge Wilson the witness said the
first paper that Col Breckenridge had
brought was the letter beginning My
Dear Sister Louise" This was in March
or April, 1856. Two or three weeks later
the witness addressed several en-
velopes addressed TO Miss Pol
lard for the defendant, and it was
then that the entry was made. The first
charge made against Col. Breckenridge
was March 49, 1886, but prior to that the
witness had done work for him, but had
made no entry because she did not know
his name.
This concluded Mrs, Lowelrs examina-
ton, and Col Breckenridge resumed the
stand for another ordeal Of cross-cxami-
nation.
BRECKENRIDGE REMEMBERS HER.
Col. Breckenridge, in answer to the first
question. said he recognized Mrs. Lowell
as a person whom he had seen in a type
writing Office in the capitol. She had
done some work, but comparatively very
little work for him. He could not recall
having taken manuscript to Mrs. Lowell
for copying.
"Will you deny that you did"
81 will not"
'DO you know where the manuscript is
that you have taken to herr"
II don't know-iJ was years ago and il
has probably been destroyed. It certainly
was never preserved after being copied. -
Il will ask if in 1886 you delivered to
her manuscript copy addressed My Dear
| Sister Louiseln
| DIDN'T DELIVER MANUSCRIPT.
81 did not"
! Col Breckenridge denied that he de-
| livered such manuscript in his own hand
writing to Mrs. Lowell.
When he was asked if he had mentioned
! to the typewriter that there was great
! disparity in his age and that of the lady
to whom he was writing, Mai. Butter
worth objected TO the question, and after
| some sparring. Judge Wilson abandoned
! this line OF questioning, and asked Col
| Breckenridge if he bad not sent Miss
| Pollard letters addressed $50 North Upper
| street, Lexington, Ky"
Certainly not in 1885," said the wit
ness.
Il believe did send some civil service
| papers to her in 1887, but that is an indis-
| Iinct memory
Did you not write Miss Pollard in 1885
/ asking her to write you a letter asking
| for some agricultural or civil service re
port and to sign the name Mary Smith
to it,"
~ did mott never did, " said the wit
ness.
Col. Breckenridge denied that he had at
| any time carried to Mrs Lowell a package
| of envelopes to be addressed separately
! from the letters. Il deny entirely what
! the witness said on the subject, he said.
A recess was then taken.
MISS POLLARD CALLED.
When the court assembled for the after
! noon session, Mr.. Carlisle asked permits
sion TO put Miss Pollard on the stand to
more fully identify the times when she
received letters from Col Breckenridge
! during their separations, and to show that
! she had received and destroyed letters in
! 1886. The plaintiff, he said, had testified
| that during ali their separation she
aud the defendant had correspondent. The
defendant denied this.
! Maj Butterworth objected, but Judge
! Bradley agreed with Mr. Carlisle and
! Miss Pollard took the stand. and Mr..
| Carlisle asked: Miss Pollard, did YOU.
| or did you not correspond with the de-
| PENDANT during the session Of lSS5-'S6!"
No, Mr. Carlisle, was never sep
Hold on; answer the question" said
! Mai. Butterworth.
Eyes, " said Miss Pollard
Were the letters you received from
! him typewrtten or in manuscript"
They We're all typewritten.
How were they addressed"
Miss Pollard 80 North Upper street,
| Lexington, Ky"
1t was diflcult to contine Miss Pollard
| to direct answers but she said she de-
! stroyed all of the letters spoken of in
} this cross-eXamination as soon as read,
/ by request of Col Breckenridge.
| BRECKENRIDGE DENIES EVERYTHING.
! Col Breckenridge again took the stand
and denied everything that had been said
! by Mrs. Lowell and Miss Pollard in re-
! gard to these letters. IL was impossible
| TO cntrap him into any sort of admission
| regarding them
/ During Miss Pollards stay at the Holy
! Cross academy, said Col Breckinridge.
/ the relations between Miss Pollard and
| himself had been resumed, and he met
/ her at designation houses. This period