The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-03-26
FILTHY TESTIMONY
Disgusting Dispositions In
troduCed in the Pollard
Breckenridge Case.
JUDGE BRADLEY'S REBUKE.
Testimony Today Went to Show
the Colonel's Movements on
Certain Days.


When the Poll ard Breckinridge trial began
this morning interest centered in the de-
cision of Judge Bradley with reference to
the admission Of certain depositions taken in
Ohio and Kentucky in behalf of Colonel
Breckenridge, to which objection was made
by Miss Pollards attorneys. Argument on
the legal points raised against these deposi-
tions was heard by Judge Bradley Saturday,
and as he promised to render his decision to-
day many lawyers were present to hear the
decision. Judge Bradley was somewhat
late. Colonel Breckinridge Major Butter
worth, Mr. Ston and Mr. McKenny of the
defence, and Desha Breckenridge were early
comers, and SO were Judge w Wilson and Mr..
Carlisle for the plaintiff.
Miss Pollard was not in court.
JUDGE BRADLEY'S DECIS ION.
When tho court had been called to order,
Judge Bra dley rendered his decision. He
cited statements to show that Circuit and
District Courts of the United States had the
power to authorize depositlons to be taken
de bene esse, and it could not be successfully
disputed. He said that this was a court of
the United States. The right of an in
dividual to take dispositions was a right
which he might exercise or not at his will
and with which the court had nothing to do,
but when dispositions were presented to the
court it became the duty of the court to de-
termine whether it was right to permit them
to be read.
This was a slight victory for Miss Pollard's
attorneys, who contended that the deposit
tions had been taken de bene esse or subject
to consideration by the court as to their ad-
instability,
Judge Bradley then took up the specific
oh do IN aTtc of ha
contained in the depositions. The first of
these objectionable dispositions was that of a
man named Brand, who refused TO answer
whether he and Miss Pollard had maintained
improper relations, a very odd refusal, so
Judge Bradley said, in view of the fact that
he had admitted that, though married
man, he frequented houses Of prostitution.
What objection the deponent could have to
answering the question the Judge could not
see.
FILTHY DEPOSITIONS
A deposition of one Kaufman was admit
ted, but Judge Bradley said if he could have
suppressed the dispositions of Brand Coffin
and one Hawkins on the ground that they
were too filthy to be read he would have
done so, but, unfortunately, he could not
overlook their legal rights. The deposition
of John O'Toole was overruled because it
was based on hearsay, and SO also were those
of DIR. Green and DIR. Lewis
Resell were not overruled, but were admit
ted subject to objection to specific questions
when they were read.
After rendering his decision Judge Brad
ley said
II will say here that the court has been
deluged with anonymous letters about this
case. No one who writes an anonymous
letter ought to expect to have any notice
taken of it.
SUGGESTION TO THE PRESS.
''And it is said that person who would
write an anonymous letter would do almost
any other mean thing that humanity will do.
There is one suggestion contained in these
letters, however, and the writer is apparent
ly actuated only by pure and proper mo-
tives, and that is directed to the pub
ths Sa'i0p details Of 'hs the nessRsps sydsnee IN
the course of the trial The public should
understand, and assume that the public
generally does, but there are some people
who do not, that no court can exercise, or
presume to exercise any censorship over the
press. But would suggest to the cor
respondents and members of the press that
it is in the best interests, not only of this
community, but Of every community in the
land to which these newspapers go.
That That I3 e far possible ss possible s disgusting ana
details of matters that may be deemed essen
tial and material to be given in evidence in
the course of the trial, should be withheld
from publication. The publication Of these
matters would, in my Judgment, render
them sufficient to exclude the news
trust that in the interests of the people of the
CITY of Washington, as well as the interests
of the country at large, and the families into
which these newspapers go, that these details
be withheld
Mr.. Carlisle took exception to the ruling
of Judge Bradley with reference to the
dispositions that were not overruled.
The decision caused long wait, while
Colonel Breckinridge's attorneys went over
the dispositions admitted, making changes
in some of them to conform to the decision
Of Judge Bradley. 81
BREcKINRIDGEs's MOVEMENTS.
The first deposition was that of Joseph 9.
Woodford County Court, who produced his
records to show that w. G. R. Breckinridge
had been an attorney for R. B. & D. Brown
in their trial for murder in January, 1854
In January, 1884, Colonel Breckenridge was
in the court, according to the records, and
was also there April lg, 1884. The record
showed that the Brown case came
up rrS in court on August 5, 1884.
af the time when Miss Pollard
testified that Colonel Brecknridge had met
her at the assignation house OF Sarah Gest,
in Lexington a few days after the alleged
BETRAYAL The deponent SAID the case mad
gone along until August 10, when ID. o.
Brown was admitted to bail
ssWas Colonel Breckenridge present at this
trial?n was asked the deponent.
ssHe was present every day" was the an
swer.
CoRRoBoRATIoN.
Judge Jerry r. Morton deposed that he
was associated with Colonel Breckinridge
in a case tried in the Circuit Court of Jessa-
mine county. KY, and that Colonel Breck-
inridge was present at the trial of the case
at Nicholsville, town twelve miles from
Lexington, on August n, %, 30 and 80. On
cross-examination ge Norton said the
town was connected with Lexington by rail-
road, ann the journey took about an hour
The deposition of Judge Joseph B. Hunt,
an arbitrator in one of the Clark county
cases, corroborated the testimony Of Mr..
Hagart.
T. o. Lewis. clerk Of the Fayette County
Court, at Lexington, deposed that Colonel
Breckinridge's name was down on his poll
book as having voted in Williams precinct
in Lexington, on August 4, 1884
w. s.. Marshall, judge of election in
Williams precinct, deposed that Col. Breck-
inridge voted on the day named by Mr..
Lewis.
Nat. L. Bronaugh corroborated the testi=
mony of Judge Morton as to Col. Breckin-
ridges presence at the Nicholsville court in
August, 1884, but he could not say whether
Col. Breckinridge remained IN the town over
night on any occasion during the trial.
The deposition of Joseph Skain, clerk OF
the Phoenix hotel in Lexington, showed
that Colonel Breckinridge had boarded at
the hotel during parts of 1337-'SS and 'S9,