Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-04-04
January, 1887. The other memorandum
!. i..z-.... sx-StA EtaAxaaarx. ik4e


sbo.ok began with February. 1856.
on redirect examination by Mir. Wilson
The witness said the fret time she had
ever seen MIR. Brcckinridge Was when he
came 10 her desk with some work. II was
soen after she went TO the Capitol. in
February. 1885. The first paper he brought
Nor was the one addressed, My Dear Sis
Ter l.oulee" She addressed the nrst en-
vslopcs after she had written two or three
letters OF the same nature. IL was In
March she thought. two or three weeks
after writing the first letter. Mr.. Wilson
thcn showed 70 the witness the memoran-
DUN book In which shS had kept record
OF work done, and asked her the date OF
the FIRST charge she had made against Mr..
breckenridge. She said this was March
Is 1895. In response 60 a question by Mr..
Butterworth she said she worked generally
for congressman or any one who brought
her work to do. Miss Lowell was then ex-
cuscd from the stand, and left the court
With her companion
slr Wilson then. at 1915 7. NJ. resumed
the cross examination OF the defendant.
BRECKENRIDGE, AGAIN.
Il will ask you" he said. whether you
ever saw Miss Lowell before2'
Il have" said Mr.. Breckinrdge "scen
this person who just testified though
never knew her name before. / have
seen her at the Capitol and in the street
cars"
10 YOU know what she was doingg'
she was "a typewriter. l think, at the
Capitol"
Did she have a place screened OF
there
she was there in the corridor. I do
not recollcct exactly whether she was
screened of or not"
Did you ever give her any work TO
do"
yes think so; sometimes when
was IN a hurry 20 write letter ] think
have dictated to her"
"Dd you ever take any manuscript to
her 10 copy?"
Not that } rccolect" said the witness.
DO YOU deny that YOU dd,'
Il 40 not deny It. but have no recol-
lection OF such thing"
III you did give her manuscript; 20
COPY would such copy have been destroy
cd,"
II l ever gave her any manuscript or
n any manuscript Of mine ever passed
through her hands. it was undoubtedly
destroyed
Il VIII ask II you did not along about
February. 1856 give her a manuscript
addressed MY Dear Sister Louise 8"
Il did not" said the witness cmpha'i-
Cally
do you deny to- asked Mr. Wilson.
II DO" said the witness emphaucaliv.
Il viii ask you ~ you ala not Ia such
manuscript refer 10 the .relt disparity
between your age and the psrson adj
dressei2''
II object" satl Mr. Buttsfworth. Mr..
Euitcrw.~ih said that they had not yet
proved IN existence Of such "A commuri-
cation or that II had eyer been mailed.
How docs Mr.. Butterworth know"
said Sir Wilson. that do not intend n
81 ffrr, no al ettrb Lott
or letters % Miss Pollard; and how does
be- know. n the witness denies that that
/ intend o. produce such a letter.
1t was your duty" said Mr. Butter
worth. "tn have done that FIRST If there
WAS any such letter this plaintiff knew It
whom she was on the witness-stand."
Mr. Wilson said that h. would leave
that point for the present, and examine
some other witnesses on the point later.
In ,he course OF the argument he said
So had been proved that Miss Pollard had
received typewriter letters from the de-
PENDANT. bat Mr.. Thompson denied this
Going on with the examination. Mr..
Br,ckinrilge was asked II Miss Lowell
did not DO considerable typewriter work
for him in 1855 50 The witness said she
had done considerable for him; she was
convenient. and he went to her. He had
never. DE said in 1856 had her address
envelopes 10 Miss Pollard.
MORE DENIAIS.
Mr. Wilson asked II he had not. in 1855
written Miss Pollard and asked her to
write back postal card asking him 10
send her an agricultural report. and sign
her name Mary Smith"
Il did not" said the defendant.
Mr. Brechinridse denied again having.
In 1850. given Miss Lowell envelopes 20
address TO Miss Pollard. He thought ne
NAV during that year have written Miss
Pollard about a civil-scrvice examination
He may have had Miss Lowell write 1t,
but could not remember He denied abso-
lutely that any such occurrence as Miss
Lowell described respecting the envelopes
had ever occurred. Mr.. wilson asked him
particularly about the matter-the char
acter Of the envelopes, &C, and MT
Breckinridge. IN regard to each particular
testified 10 by Miss Lowell. repeated his
denial. At this point the usual recess
was taken.
After the noon recess Mr.. Carlisle an
nounced that Mr.. Wilson desired TO con-
tinue his cross-eXaminatlOn OF the DEFEND
ant on the matter of the letters, Inc
plaintiff had already testified that the let
ters she received from the defendant IN
$50 and 1881 were In typewr1tine. and
they desired 10 place Miss Pollard upon
the stand 10 testify more particularly as
10 the destruction OF certain letters re-
ceived from him. They desired 10 cross
examine Mr.. Breckenridge on the matter
and SO they asked for permission to put
the plaintiff on the stand again on the
same ground that they had called Miss
Loweli-viz. TO lay the foundation for ii
further series of questions beyond the
toint where they had been shut of by
the rulings OF the Judge.
Mr.. Butierworth insisted that this was
not In the nature Of newly-discovered evi-
oorce Mr. Carlisle responded that II was
not their purpose 10 prove the contents OF
the letters. but only 10 prove their recep-
ton and destruction prior 10 continuing
the crosse xaminaiion OF the defendant
himself as TO the contents Of the letters.
The question was argued from legal
standpoint by Mr.. Butterworth and Mr.
Carlisle. and Judge Bradley, after going
over the reasons why Miss Lowell had
been allowed to testify this morning,
r.lei that Miss Pollard should also be
permitted 10 testify. for the purpose only |
81 building "a foundation for further cross |
examination.
MISS POLLARD AGAIN.
In answer 20 a question from Mr.. Car
Isle Miss Pollard said that during the
session OF 1875 she cOrresp0nded with !
the defendant. She was then in LeXing-
ton al 80 North Upper street, and all the
letters that she received from the defend /
could Identify number OF them by the f.
beginnings. In many he addressed her as
My Dear Sister Louise in one he called |
her My Dear Spithre." lie often called !
her. MY Dear Sweetheart" or by some |
other endcarlnE title. She received letters !
addressed in typewriting up TO July or /
August OF lsSi or. al any rate. up TO the |
close of the long session. During the
session Of 1851 she also received letters |
addressed Ia this manner. She was asked !
what had become OF all these letters, and
answered that they were all destroyed f.
and Immediately upon reading them. She
started TO say that this vas dOne at the
request Of Mr.. Breckenridge, but this was
forbidden by the court. Neither was the
witness allowed TO testify as TO the con-
tents Of the letters This was IN line with
the ruling OF the court In the case OF
Miss Lowell this morning.
ON cross-cxamination Miss Pollard was
asked whether she had ever received
letter addressed In typewritiDg from any
other place than Washington. but Of this
au.. Was not certain. though she was