The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-04-11

point
Judge Bradley inquired whether if the
letter was in existence and Col. Brock
inridge denied it, 1t could not be pro-
duced in rebuttal and Mr.. Shelby re-
sponded that even under those circum-
stances ii could not since it would be an
attempt under the guise of rebuttal 10
prove the case in chief. More argument
was made by Mr.. Wilson, who held that
effect OF evidence could not be eliminated
because ii came out in croSs-eXamina-
ton. Half an hour had been consumed
by this argument when Judge Bradley
decided the point, saying that there could
be no doubt about the admissibility of
the letter itself, if it was in existence.
as basis of cross-eXamination. Although
a novel case confronted the court the
authorities seemed TO be that where a
paper had been destroyed or lost proof
of its previous existence could be inter-
jected. 1t seemed TO be proper since the
crOss-examining counsel said the paper
was not in his possession and the witness
denied knowledge OF it, to interject
proof of its existence as a basis of ex-
animation.
Mrs. LoweIPs Testimony.
Thereupon Mrs Louise Lowell took a
seat in the witness box. She said that
she had known Col. Breckenridge since
February, 1886. having become acquaint-
ed with him at the house of represent
atives. where she had an office TO carry
on business as a stenographer and type
writer in the corridor by the committee
on postoffices.
Did you do work for Col. Breckin-
ridge?" Mr.. Wilson inquired.
II did
Did he bring manuscript of a letter
to your
He did, and I copied it on typewriter"
How was the letter addreSsed?'
Il object" Interrupted two or three of
the Breckenridge attorneys, who pro-
tested that there was no proof of the
letter having been mailed. but Judge
Bradley said, to sustain the objection.
would be TO nullify the purpose of ad-
hitting the witness. The manuscript
and copy had been returned to the
colonel Mrs. Lowell continued. From
1886 to 1890 she had done Col. Breckin-
ridges private correspondence and con-
gressional work, always returning the
manuscript.
Addressed to Miss Pollard.
Now. what was on those envelopes? -
continued Mr.. Wilson.
Miss Pollard, rs Upper-st, Lexing-
ton, Ky
And how do you remember that?'
Il kept a memorandum book. i'm which
I noted the address,
Have you the book?'
Il have" she said, and the book was
passed around for inspection Of the law
yers.
Feeling sure that sooner or later I
would hear more of Miss Pollard and not
wishing to trust my memory. | made
that memorandum, she explained, and
continuing, said:
He Breckinridge) brought me two or
three envelopes separately. then pack
age of a dozen small ones yellowed with
age and not such envelopes as a bust
ness man would use" The question OF
the substance of those letters was OBJ
jected TO and the objection sustained for
the present. The first communication
said the witness was addressed to MY
dear sister Louisa and when Mr.. Will
son urged that testimony of its con
tents should be admitted Mr.. Butter
worth returned that there was no proof
that it had ever been mailed or re-
ceived. reminding Mr.. Wilson that i;
was the ground taken by him regard
ing the alleged forged letter Of Miss
POllaTd's."
Il now give you notice. if you have
that letter, to produce it," said Mr.. Will
son TO the defense
How can | produce the letter if
sent it to the PLAINTIFF" Col. Breckin-
ridge inquired in reply. whereupOn Mr.
Wilson remarked in his inimitable way
You and | will have a little converse
ton after awhile"
The witness, continuing, recolIected
that she had copied the letters foi
Breckenridge nearly every week, but said
she could only prove having done IF
teen or sixteen. The judge having ruled
out examination concerning the contents
Of the letter. Mr.. ButterwoTth made q
brief cross-eXaminatiOn. asking Mrs
Lowell where she had worked and fol
how long. She had kept a record of the
work she did for congressman, with the
amounts received, in an account book
She had an independent recollection oil
the address of Miss Pollard. since the
matter had made a very deep impress
sion on her mind.
Are you acquainted with Miss Pol
lard?' was asked.
Il never saw Miss Pollard until thi:
morning"
In her books she had merely entered
the amounts of work done, the name o.
the party and the amounts charged, So
that no. congressman need worry FOL
fear that the ledger would rise up Il
get them into trouble.
Col. Breckenridge made other emphatic
denials covering many Of the statement:
OF Miss Lowell.
After the recess Miss Pollard wa.
placed on the stand to prove that tn,
letters in question had been received by
her and destroyed. The defense objected
10 this line of testimony at this stage
but ii was admitted by the court, excep
ton being noted Miss Pollard described
these letters as beginning My dear sis
ter Louise" and MY little spitfire," anC
addressed by typewriter and al
signed in lead pencil.
More Fiat DeniaIs.
Then Col. Breckenridge was back OF
the stand making fiat denials concernins
these letters Having finished thi
branch of the subject. the defendant told
of the events of the fall Of 1887, whe1