Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-04-10
TEARS OF ANGUISH.
CoNT1NrED FROM FIRST PAGE)

CoNTINUED FROM FIRST PACED
here the attacks made on the plaintiffs
character, There was no attack made
upon her conduct until the period testlied
10 by Mrs Miller alias Shlndlebauer. This
woman was brought by the agents or the
defence TO Lexington To give her testi-
mony She testified that the conduct OF the
plaintiff was precociously improper ana
disgraceful.
Mollie Shindlebauer fixed the time ana
place She fixed the time az 1871 ana DO
and the place as. at or near Frankior,.
The account the woman gives OF nerse'I
was such that he could without much rear
contsnd on her own testimony that she
was not worthy of belief. He did not,
however. need to do that. as they had
proved by credible witnesses that az that
period the plaintiff was not In the s'ate Oh
Kentucky. but was In the state Oh fe''"-
sylvania- 100,
IL was made by John Brand ana firh,i,
Kaufman. Mr. Carlisle Thought u "oui'
be pretty safe to leave these WITNESSES :"
be Judged by the jury, as they nau ,"s o.
racterizsd themselves. They claimed 10
h.ve kpovn and seen the plaintiff in the
wear 1859 in the city OF Lexington. In ,ne
disrenutable house OF one Lena Singleton.
The woman Singleton was not oescrlpeu
40 a nero casual visitor in the mousse on
north Upper street where they Iooa',u
her. hut said she was living III co'.ae
there. The Jury would remenper '"as
the testimony OF the son ana hePhe" %
Mr. Keene who lived five miles ou,siue
~ Lexington. and with whom the pain
tiff then lived confirmed her own slat
ments. and showed the probaDhitiss
Of
man as TO the disreputabie lie .mey s AZ
the plaintiff was then leading. Ihey u.'
not however. rely upon that entirey'
Thev had the testimony OF two men wno
I,ved In the ueighborhood, VINO testihe'
that no such woman as Lena olns ,
had kept a house there in that heishuo,
hood MIR Benkert had told them Una,
| the cottage described was not Du'i' III
1885. ,,.r,de
Erand's description OF his buggy,riue
With the plaintiff was denied by the p'h, ~.
| tiff and by all the probabilities sno"
the testimony. He thought these wv"
wi,nesses had painted themselves In such
coIors as to make IT impossible 10 pc
,ioye Thorn II II had been true that ,i,e
r,a,n,iff had AT that time led such III,
.. ,bev had described in the congressioha,
district of the defendant (Brecklnr'us.t
u.o,,,d have been proved by such 'iaIi
Of credible witnesses appearing
tbs i,rv "a could not leave room lol
douht and not by the dispositions OF '"o
such men as Brand and Kaufman
RozELLs TESTIMONY.
,,oeorr,n,- IN what he termed the next
a,,ack the testimony OF Rankin Rozeh
Mr. Carlisle said he had no doup' w
Jury had as he had. obtained some u"
nression of Mr.. Rozell when he appeareu
an the stand. He had preserved thesc
,iu-tvpes all these years lie hah give"
deposition out in Kentucky anu -
had come on here. In his direct eAa"'i.
tion here he had not said that III Ms VIC
its TO Wesleyan College he mad SAT l'oii
an hour TO two hours with the plahl'''i V"
his lap He had said that IN MS uepUo
ton. and when his attention WAS cdneu
IN n I'm his cross-examnation he repeated
I, bere before the Jury, saying that ne
had repeatedly sat there with the pam
TN IN his Ian, sitting in the open recep-
ton-rooms of the college. They had met
that with the testimony Of Mrs. Brown
the wife Of the president Of that cohese'
which showed that II was utterly iinpossl-
bile for Rozelrs testimony to be true
He claimed that he had visited the
plaintir there three or four tunes d
week which Mrs. Brown showed couid
NOT possiblv be true under the regulations
of the institution. and from when no IN
ceptions were made, not even In ne c"'o
of Mr. Rozell. whom Mrs. Brown Knew,
From 1889 the time OF the ltoZcIl HO'-
don't forward there was not even an at
,emnt TO attack the character or reputa-
ton of this plaintiff, except In so tar AS
she was connected with this defehdtht
himself. He did not forget, In saying mat
tho slur which had been cast by the W.
PENDANT I'm his testimony; No was Eo'HS
10 come to them and meet them. mere
was no attempt except in these Siurs' -
rsoect on the conduct Of the pidlhtlI
with any other man than TINS ueieh"'I''.
after their meeting In the summer oi
1854 He referred to the allese1 hioCh
marriage, said to have taken place IL
Christmas. 1882 at the house OF rs'Pt't
able country magistrate in Kentucky
Squire Tinsey Squire Tinsley's name
was included in the notice Given by inc
defence of those whose dispositions were
10 be taken; they had waited, but he had
never appeared as witness. the whoi@
story rested on the statement IN me
deposition of Alexander Julian. Tney
had against that the probabilities or the
case. the absolute denial OF the "i'hes'
that any such discreditable thing ever
occurred. and also a picture OF Mr.. Juiian
as he had painted IL hlHlSeH'
JULIAN'S TESTIMONY.
lie reviewed Mr. Julian's testimony,
showing that everybody at That muse
WAS on that morning rather the worse
for liquor except himself. lie had ti.e
disadvantage OF being blind already ana
narhars thought IL would be more TO his
credit in his testimony to appear 10 nrep
sober. They knew something or rs
b,b,ts and Mr. Carlisle lkened him to
Mr. Sticgins. who in addressing Ms.
Weller's association of ladies' got up.
balanced himself, and said: MY opinion
is THU meetinsh drunk" He reviewed
Julian's testimony as 10 how he had lost
his sight. Even the man who told thst
story had to say at the end of his d"po-
s,tion that he believed this plaintiff was
a good. innocent girl. Mr.. Julian's story
as 10 the mock marriage was utterly un-
supported by the testimony OF any o'htr
witness. though the man in whose house
| II had occurred had been called as Wit
ness. The defence brought an old fellow
named William Wood. who swore that
in 1852, when the plaintiff was living
with her aunt, he became engaged 10 the
plaintiff and that when the engagement
| was broken off She In tantrum, threw
the ring he had given her in his face.
| This kind Of testimony. Sir. Carlisle said,
| was put in as make weights" TO show.
| he supposed, how this plaintiff. through
| her relations with and opportunities TO
meet men. was prepared to be on her
| guard and to care for herself when she
| met this defendant
There was no offer to show anything
| improper in her relations with Wood. The
plaintiffs testimony had explained this
testimony of Woods. There was no scene
| of violence, according to her description.
| The fact that there was some sort of en-
gagement the plaintiff admits. He had no
| fear of leaving that just as Ii was In the
testimony. Now, he said. they had got
| through every attempt TO reflect on the
| life and conduct of this plaintiff up to
| the year 1884, except as to the admission
| the defendant said the plaintiff had made
| to him at the Wesleyan College on the lst
Of August, 1884.
IL was much 10 the interest OF this de-
| PENDANT to show II he could by the best
! sort OF witnesses the dsreputable conduct
| OF this plaintiff before his meeting her
| II she had been guilty of such conduct.
| But not one syllable of such testimony
| had this jury heard, except these deposit
| lions taken In the defendants congress
sional district In the month Of February.
| If there had been, he repeated, any such
| disreputable conduct IL would have been
| found out and proved by witnesses they