The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1894-04-04
He ISN'T JUST so SURE
Brtcklnrldss Has a Very Convenient
Want Of Memory.
TALE THAT'S GROWING OLD
The Sinner with Sea Foam Locks
at the Mercy OF a Lawyer
Who Plays No
Favorites.

WASHINGTON, April 3.-There was a va
ration of the order OF testimony to-day in
tho Pollard-Breckiuridge tr.a., TO permit
tho introduction Of evidence to the effect
that Colonel Breckinr.dgo had carried on
typewriter correspondence with Made
line Pollard from the house OF representa-
tivcs in 1885. The demurrer of the de-
fendant's lawyer against the admission OF
this evidence brought delicate case of
law before the judge. 1t was conceded
that the document might be brought into
use aud tho witness questioned upon il IN
cross-examination from which to lay \
basis for contradiction, but whether the
existence of the missing document could
bc asserted and the defendant asked
whether he wrote II, was another qGes-
ton, a question which Judge Bradley de-
cided In the affirmative after listening 10
tho argument and consulting the authors
ties. lie held. however, that tho witt
ncssos could not be asked 20 give their
recollection of the contents OF the letters.
Judge Bradley does not seem TO relish
the testimony of Colonel Brecbinridge.
Butterworth opened the question of tho
admissibility of the alleged correspond
ence with Madeline Pollard in lss6.
Judge Wilson assured the court that the
evidence was discovered only last sunday
aud asserted that hc proposed TO put the
witness on the stand at once, that Breck-
inridge might have time for explanations.
A spirited discuss sion followed as to the
admissibiliiy of tho disputed letter, IL
found.
Judge Bradley decided there Is no
I.t,ht .l ,,lfntSatlNt1tt,s ~ the latt..
itself.
Accordingly Miss Louise Lowell. who
conducted the business of typewriting and
stenography at the capitol in lss6, was in
troduccd as n witness. She said she cop
led letters for the defendant, returning
the letters and copies; the envelopes were
addressed to Miss Pollard, a North Upper
street, Lexington. She produced n MEM
orandum showing tho entries. The first
communication began, My Dear Louise
She had copied the letters nearly every
week. The judge ruled out the contents
OF the letters.
Miss Pollard was put on the stand and
testified she had received the letters in
question.
Colonel Breckinridge made denials of
the testimony of Miss Lowell. The de.
fendant referred 10 the timo when he and
the plaintiff met in Washington in 1887,
''as woman in her condition and rs a
man supposing himself 10 be the author
of the condition would meet"
"Do you wish IL 10 be understood that
you supported her in whole or in part dur
ing tho two years she was at the academy
of tho Holy Cross on Massachusetts, av.
enue?" was a question to which the
colonel responded: Il would not wish to
be understood as saying anything about it
IL could, but, as matter Of fact, my
contributions were in irregular amounts,
and understood they were to pay her
board at the academy"
Referring to five notes OF 500 drawn by
the plaintiff and endorsed by the defend.
aut, late in 1892. TO pay Miss Pollard's ex.
penscs at school, Colonel Breckinridge
stated be did not know what had become
OF the notes.
"Did you not know that notice OF pro-
test was sent to you in Lexington and
Washington"
Tho witness said he did not know the
particular object of those notes, but they
were not TO buy trosseau.
Tho cross examination then drifted into
tho renewal of the relations in Washing
ton in 1859. The witness said he had taken
a room in the northwest section of the
city at ono time, but gave IL up because
everybody seemed to be watching them.
In April. lsoj, he had met the plaintiff
several times at the house of Mrs. Thomas.
on Il street, but never saw her sewing and
using basket that formerly belonged to
his wife. lie never knew she had the
basket until produced here. He met Miss
Pollard in New York in 1891, and took a
carriage and went to some place on
| Thirty.third street.