The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-04-04

son then asked the witness to tell by her
memorandum book how many times she
had done the writing work OF the defend
ant and she said her record showed that
she had done work for Col. breckenridge
fifteen or sixteen times. but that did not
really represent the whole number OF
times she had written letters for him.
Ms. Lowell Cr"ss- Examined
On cross-examinatlon, Mrs. Lowell said
she had written Miss Pollards name ana
address on the fly leaf Of her little men,
orandum book. because she thought she
might have to write the name again In
her work. and she wanted to remember
II for that reason. Mrs Lowell said she
kept no record Of Miss Pollard's name
and address in her regular accounts, nor
did she keep 4 record that she had written
a letter for Col. Breckenridge beginning
my Dear Sister Louise There was
nothing in her regular account book to
show whether the work done for Col.
Breckenridge was a lecture or speech
The number of envelopes addressed TO
Miss Pollard was about twelve at one
time and few scattering ones before
that There was nothing in her record,
she said, to indicate the character OF the
work.
Were you in the habit of making
memoranda OF your work like this ad-
dress Of Miss Pollard?'
mo, | was not
"Why did you put down Miss Pollards
name and address,
Because of the unusual character OF
the work. evidently referring to the
time-stained envelopes which Colonel
Breckenridge brought her to address.
Major Butterworth endeavored to find
out how 1t was that she became known
as the writer OF the "Sister Louise let
ter, but the witness was unable 10 tell
him. She had mentioned the fact to
friends that she had written letters for
Colonel Breckenridge.
Mrs Lowell examined her note book
again. and said, in answer to Major But
terworth that its earliest date was jan
uary. 1857, nearly a year after the ISIS
ter Louise" letter is said to have been
written. The witness said she did not
know how it came that she had put Miss
Pollards name and address on the fly
leaf of the book early in 1856, when she
began 10 enter memoranda in il until the
next year.
To Judge Wilson the witness said the
first paper that Colonel Breckinridge had
brought her was a letter beginning. MY
Dear Sister Louise" This was In March
or April. 1856. Two or three weeks later
the witness addressed several envelopes
TO Miss Pollard for the defendant, and
il was then that the entry was made
The first charge made against Colonel
Breckenridge was March 16, 1856. but prior
TO that the witness had done work for
him but had made no entry. because
she did not know his name This con
cluded Mrs. LOwells examination and
Colonel Breckenridge resumed the stand
FOR another ordeal OF crOss-examlnatlon
BrecAinridg Again Tn 81 ire.
Col. BrcckiDridge. in answer to the
first question. said he recognized Mrs.
Lowell, whom he had seen in type
writing Office In the Capitol. She had
done some work, but comparatively very
little work, for him. He could not re-
call having taken manuscript to Mrs.
Lowell for copying.
"Will you deny that you did?'
81 will not
do you know where the manuscript
is that you have taken to herr"
Il don't know. Il was years ago. and
it has probably been destroyed. II GER
tainly was never preserved after being
copied"
Il will ask If in 1886 you delivered to
her manuscript to be copied, addressed,
MY Dear Sister Loulse?'
II did not"
Colonel Breckinri1ge denied that he de-
livered such manuscript in his own hand
writing TO Mrs. Lowell. When he was
asked ii he had mentioned to the type
writer that there was a great disparity
in his age and that of the lady to whom
he was writing, Major Butterworth OBJ
jected to the question, and. after some
sparrlng, Judge Wilson abandoned this
line of questioning and asked Colonel
Breckenridge If he had not sent Miss
Pollard letters addressed 50 north Upper
street. Lexington, Ky.
Certainly not In 1856" said the wit
ness. Il believe / did send civil service
papers to her in 1887. but it is an indis-
tlnct memory"
"Did you not write Miss Pollard In
1886. asking her to write you letter
asking for some agricultural or civil SER
vice report and 10 sign the name Of
Mary Smith to it?''
II did not; never did" said the wit
ness
Colonel Breckinridge denied that he at
any time carried 10 Mrs. Lowell "A pack
age of envelopes to be addressed sepa-
rately from the letters. II deny entirely
what the witness said on the subject"
he said
Recess was then taken.
When the court assembled for the after
noon session Mr.. Carlisle asked permission
10 put Miss Pollard on the stand to more
fully identify the times she had received
letters from Colonel Breckenridge during
their separations, and 20 show that she
had received and destroyed letters in 1886.
The plaintiff, he said had testified that
during all their separations she and the
defendant had cOrrespOnded; the defen-
dant denied this.
Major Rutterworth objected. but Judge
Bradley agreed with Mr. Carlisle, and
Miss Pollard took the stand, and Mr.. Car
Isle asked:
Miss Pollard. did you or did you not
correspond with the defendant during the
session Of 's5-62'
Now, Mr.. Carlisle. ! was never sep
Hold on, answer the question: said
Major ButterwOrtn.
Yes" Miss Pollard said.
'Were the letters received from him IN
his handwriting or in manuscript
"They were all typewr,ten.'
How were they addressed
Miss Pollard, So north Upper street.
Lexington. KY"
IL was difficult 10 confine Miss Pollard
to direct answers, but she destroyed all
of the letters spoken OF In this cross
examination as soon as read. by request
Of Col Breckenridge.
Breckinridge Resumes His Hoie
Col. Breckenridge again took the stand
and denied everything that had been said
by Mrs. Lowell ana Miss Pollard IN re-
gard 10 these letters. 1t was lmpossipie
10 entrap him into any sort OF admission