The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1894-04-10
In MADELINE'S BEHALF.
Mr.. Carlisle Begins His Address in
the Famous Case.
HIS ALLUSIONS TO THE SILVER
TONGUED ORATOR.

Arguing to Prove that the Defence Has
| Failed to Show that Miss Pollard Was
Breckinridge Met Her-School Day
| Tintypes Introduced-The Jury's
Opinion Pitted Against Barrelful of
Expert Testimony.
Washington, April 9.-Mr. Carlisle be-
gan the argument for the paintif in the
| Pollard Breckenridge suit today. He
briefly stated the life of the plaintiff
from the time of her fathers death in
1876 until 1893 He called attention to
| the fact that the testimony of Mollie
| Shinglebauer. John Brant, Hiram kautf-
man and Rankin Roselle had all been
disproved by reputable witnesses. He
| declared thai. there was not an attempt
| to attack the charater of the plalnt!H
since 1884, except as relates to the de-
fendant. He said: For nine years the
| defendant was intimately acquainted
with this plaintiff, yet with all the
knowledge gained by that Intimacy,
with all his influence as member of
| Congresssat his command, all he is able
| to produce are the dispositions of such
| disreputable characters as Brant and
| Kaufman, Mollie Schinglebauer and
! Aleck Julian, Rankin Roselle and the
| old man Wood.n The defense, said Mr.
| Carlisle, had taken the dispositions OF
| OrrinsBrownsand his sister. Mrs. Ronersn,
| children of the president of Wesleyan
| college, but they spoke SO well and so
! e IoIn hat
4 tiff's counsel read the deposltlons as
/. part of their evidence. Mr.. Carlisle
| handed to the jury several tlntypes OF
| the plaintiff taken just before she met
the defendant, where Miss Pollard is. re-
| presented in short dresses and other
marks of school-girllshness. Ihen
| Mr.. Carlisle told of the meeting between
the plaintiff and the defendant on the
train in 1884. He passed over this
| quietly, saying that both parties said
it was mere trivial conversation, the
only point of difference being that she
said he accosted her, he saying she ac-
costed him. The history of the Ken
tucky orator was sketched in compli-
mentary language ION this staEd," said
Mr.. Carlisle, "this defendant paid tri-
butte in voice and manner to his de-
ceased wife, the mother sof his children.
He confesses on the witness stand no
man had less excuse for what he cld
l
the advantages he had. No words
could paint the depth into which he fell
in this instance And this is the man
ner of man who met this school girl on
that train"
Mr.. Carlisle, in defending the plaintiff
for writing to Col. Brecklnndge, arter
she had met him but once, said the de-
/ tenda ant told her that he had known her
father. This brought up the subject
of the letter produced by Col. Breckln-
ridge. in which Miss Pollard is re-
presented as saying that she wanted
Col. Breckenridge to call on her at coli
i leee. Mr.. Carlisle said it was shown
!, that the knowledge of the expert wit
nesses called by the defense to testify
about the letter was not an exact
science Handing the jury fac-simile
copy otsthe marriage certificate of Col.
Breckinridge and Mrs. Wing, he asked
them to look at the copy, which looked
was to produce it. just compare the
letter / hand you, a letter of July
: 20. and note the points of differ
ence between it and the other letters
which Miss Pollard wrote. Your opin-
ion will be as good as barrel OF expert
testimony"
ride, Mr.. Carlisle said the fact that on
Lot August evening the defendant
brought a closed carriage to take the
plaintiff to concert hall demanded ex-
PLANTATION. The defendant had not at
tempted to explain it. He merely con-
tented himself with saying that he
picked out the carriage without looking
at what sort of carriage 1t was. Mr.
Carlisle laid great stress on the testimo-
nv of Mrs, Black burn, which he said the
defendant refused to deny.
He left himself two modes of escape and
either one would !bring him face to face
with the horns ola dilemma on one OF
which he must impale himself. He de-
clared that his client must have stood
| the test of severe cross-examlnatiOn as
! she did solely because she spoke the
truth. The relations of the plaintiff
and the defendant were reviewed from
the standpoint of each, and MI. Carl Isle
contended that it was shown the guilty
relations of the pair We're continuous
despite the testimony of the defendant
that there had been intervals in
. those relations. Mr.. Carlisle took up
the alleged promise of m arrlage which
| Miss Pollard says he made in Washing
ton, August 81, 1892.
Col. Breckenridge testified that Miss
IPollard was not insstown at that date
but it was proved by the entry in Mrs.
Minear's boarding house ledger that
Miss Pollard returned on the date
named. AS to the defense of Col.
Breckenridge that he and Miss Pollard
merely pretended to be engaged. Mr.
Carlisle referred to the very important
, testimony of Claude de la Roche Fran
els. who told of his accidental caves
dropping in Mrs. Thomas's when Col.
Breckenridge said to Miss Pollard be
was sorry she had mentioned their en-
gagement to the witness,
At this point Mr.. Carlisle asked Judge
Bradley's permission to continue his
address tomorrow, and the court ad
journed.
INTO A PnARIMG EIIRNAGE