Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-04-06

objected Then Mr.. Shelby asked the
witness if an the admissions into the
asylum at that period were covered In
,ho book and she said they were. There
was n6 other child brought there on or
! about the "a Of February. 1888. with
not pinned on its clothing.
Mr.. Wilson objected TO the introduction
| OF tho record as IL was hearsay evidence.
| d record only of what some one had
/ stated 10 the witness. There was, he
maintained 10 proof here that the paper
pasted in The book was the slip pinned
Cn the Child's clothing. The statement
Ok "a person carrying an infant TO an
institution Of that kind where the very
purpose was 20 conceal the identity Of
/ The chnl ought not TO be received as
| evidence
! Mr. shelby said the transaction about
| which they were taking evidence was
! ,hc delivery Of the child 10 that institu-
/ ton. II they could offer evidence as to
what was done. he maintained that what
! was said at the time. whether the state
/ mcu's made were true or not. became
| competent testimony.
judge BRADLEY sustained the objection
] ~ Mr Wilson. and an exception was
! noted.
ar shelby asked the witness II she
! could state whether the facts stated in
! tar record were true. in other words,
/ whether it was q true entry.
/ The witness said II was n true entry
and made by her that evening. There
were no admissions 10 the asylum not re-
| corded.
Witness dld not know Dr. Mary Par
/ sons From February lst up 20 the time
witness left the asylum Miss Pollard was
/ mot az the asylum so far as witness knew.
There were certain visiting days when
! visitors were admitted. and there was no
rule as 20 who should admit them. There
Was no white woman with the child. and
poo one hat the ncgrcss mentioned with
the child when it was brought there
she dil not embcr when the child died.
/ bat she Thought without looking at the
record. that it lived three or four months
Mr. shelby was then about 10 ask the
witness 20 make n statement about the
case after refreshing her recollection from
| the record.
Mr. Wilson. however. interrupted and
questioned the witness as 10 her indcpend-
| cnt recollection She said she remembered
the case distinctly. She did not remem-
bcr me date. but knew il was in cold
weather
Ny shelby then proceeded with the ex-
animation.
The witness said that after refreshing
her recollection by the record, she remem-
bercd that an infant was brought there on
th, "A Of February. lNSS. The child was
q boy and a very fine baby. II was eX-
amiucd the next morning by one of the
phy ysiciaus. who said IT was a newly-born
child.
Vow what was the name given 10 that
child at that tlmc?" asked Mr.. Shelby.
81 object" said Mr.. Wilson.
This started a new legal argument as to
the competency Of the testimony.
question AS to the competency of the sub
iect matter OF the teStimony-the paper
pasted ia the bOok-which the witness
could not say was the original paper.
TIE witness being questioned about this
! saiI that she believed the paper was ;he
| original because IL was not in her hand
| writing.
Mr.. Wilson asked her. II the entry was
| made Immediately, and she said that II
| was made that evening Mr. Wilson said
! that could not be. as she said the doctor
made the examination the next morning.
| The witness was about 10 explain about the
| rules OF tn. institution. but Judge Bradley
| che cked her.
Mr.. Wilson asked when the child was
clristcncd. and the witness said that was
two weeks after.
Mr. Wilson remarked then that the re-.
cord could not have been made then
until after the christening, as that fact
Was recorded.
The witness said that that place wag
let blank.
Judge Bradley asked how they could
Know that the child would live to DE
Cirsteuoi.
The witness repeated that the place for
christening was left blank and the entry,
she noticed. was not in her handwriting.
NAME or THE CHILD.
Mr.. shelby then asked what was thu
name given IN the institution to the child,
Mr.. Wilson objected. and asked the
witness II she had any recollection inde-
pendent OF the record Of the name given
to the child. She said she had She dli
not remember the names of all the in
fauts christened there.
Mr.. Wilson again having urged objec'
tion 10 the testimony the witness said
that she would state that TO the best OF
her knowledge and belief and recollection
the paper pasted in the book was the
original paper pinned on the child'5 cloth
ing.
Mr. Wilson remarked that she had
stated AT first tina: she was unable TO say
whether that was the paper
The witness said that she desired 10 cor
rect that statement
Mr. shelby urged the competency or the
question he had asked.
>
framed 10y any such proposition as this
IL urged that they must show this was
tho slin mined on the clothing by the
plaintiff They proposed 10 give the state
uent Of the coored woman who brought
the child. and fixed that upon the plain
tin ,,
Judqe BRADLEY said the witness could tes-
tify TO the name given the child. and also
ae 10 the date Of its death II she
knew it. ,.,,.,--. 1900.
the name of the child given in that lhsu-
tutiOn|
"pietz Downing" replied the witness.
"Nhv ala YOU give 1t that nameY' asked
Mr Shelby.
Mr. Wilson again objected, and another
arguro.nt followed. Judge Bradley sus-
| tained the objection
Mr. Shelby asked II there was any Ill
r.ction i'm the paper as TO the name 10
be given to the child
Mr.. Wilson objected, unless IL couid De
shown that the direction was In lhe
writing of the plaintin. e,.ou..-
~ * not necessary" said Mt ShelDy.
",o connect the plaintiff with the matter.
.orben II is immaterial," said Mr.. VII
sen. c,..,,.,. ..o chou,
that the plaintiff had no connection WIN
| this child. There have been such thinSs
as substitution of children.
! JuIeo Bradley said that seemed 10 oe
J q collateral matter. and attention VAS
/ csrc0 Ia the fact that the plaintii ur-
! claratlon alleged that she had borne the
| defendant a child at that time. JudSe
| T,,fl.v Looked over the declaration
Mir shelby said that the ave.
MT maj she had borne chiid 70
thc defendant in 1885 in an institution IN
! C,nc.nnati was met by testimony gong
10 show that she had not been NJ t 'na'
institution. but that child had Degh
/ l,r, 10 another woman there. ne
! ,nouob, II competent now 70 show that
! there was an effort 10 TX ,he iueli''ts l'. ~
| - GONE child at the institution now III
| question as her child. when i was hot'
Judge Bradley sustained the opJectoh
| u Nr she.by's question
Mr. shelby asked If when the chlld "aS
taken 10 the institution the colored wo'
man who brought II told the name oil IT,
OBJECTION was made and oyerruIed'
The witness said the woman caiied tne
infant by the name % "iez Do"H-
I ing
Mr.. Shelby asked If any child othef
than Diciz Downing. who was born ~ ~
February 1885, d!ed at that institution III
h-~n. lss
After some objections and argument