Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-04-09

| defense brought an old fellow named VIM.
Wood, who swore that in 1852, when the
plaintiff was living with her aunt, became
| engaged to the plaintiff, and that when the
/ engagement was broken off she, In a tan
/ trum, threw the ring he had given her in
his face. This kind of testimony, Mr.. Car
| Isle said, was put in as make weights to
! show, he supposed. how this plaintiff
| through her relations with and opportuni-
tles 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
| plalntlHs testimony had explained this
testimony of Woods. There was no scene
| OF violence, according TO her description.
| The fact that there war some sort of en-
| gagement the plaintiff admits. He had no
| rear of leaving that just as 1t 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 de-
| PENDANT said the plaintiff had made to him
| ct the Wesleyan College on the LIST of
! August, 1854.
! 1t was much to the interest of this de-
! PENDANT to show if he could by the best
sort Of witnesses the disreputable conduct
| of this plaintiff before his meeting her If
| she had been guilty of such conduct But
not one syllable of such testimony had this
| jury heard. except these dispositions taken
| in the defendants congressional district in
the month of February. If there had BEEN
he repeated, any such disreputable cR-
/ duct II would have been found out and
proved by witne sses they could believe
| With all his advantages-with the advan-
! tage of nine years of intimate acquaint-
! arce with the plaintiff when he must have
learned much of her past history-all that
| the defendant had produced or could pro-
| duce was this testimony of Mollie Shindle-
| bauer, of Brand and Kaufman and old
| man Woods
| And Rozell," interjected Mr.. Wilson.
The Kind of Girl the Plaintiff Was.
toll tha,,
what manner of girl this plaintiff was as
shown by the tintypes produced by the de-
| PENDANT. and by her girlish letters.
They had shown that this Kentucky or
phan girl had lived an innocent life, and
! came to the Wesleyan College a pure and
inexperienced country girl. She so impress
ed the authorities of the college. Mrs. Rob-
inson. Mr.. Brown and Mrs. Brown had
shown that in their testimony. They had
read Mr. Browns deposition, notwithstand-
ing 1t was taken by the defense, because of
the good 1T spoke of the plaintiff
1t was in evidence that in April, 1884 the
plaintiff went home from the Wesleyan Col
lege to the bedside Of her sister. They had
testimony of the defendant and Mrs Dr.
street that the plaintiff was dressed in black
They had Sarah Guests testimony that the
plaintiff wore short dresses. They had the
tintypes produced here by Mrs. Brown and
by the defendant which showed what sort
| of a girl she was. Mr.. Carlisle then hand
y y
examined it, said:
Look at that picture of the girl upon
whom he wishes to place more than half of
the burden of their admitted mutual fault
even on his own statement. Look at that
picture and then upon the defendant and
remember the testimony that there was lit
/ tie difference between his appearance then
! and now"
Mr. Carlisle then reviewed the testimony
| of the plaintiff and the defendant to
| their first meeting on the train on the way
| to Lexington. There was nothing. the de-
PENDANT admitted in the appearance OF the
| school girl to inspire him with alarm or
| give him warning. There was nothing In
| the interview, as described by either, that
! was not proper, though there were some
| differeI ces in the two accounts OF the IN
! terview which would undoubtedly be made
much use of in argument. The defense at
tempted to throw Oft right there the re
| sponsib.lty for this first interview. He
| said that she accosted him first. He even
had a reason for going TO the end of the
car, passing her seat. He had to go to get
| his coat They should remember here who
this man was He spoke again of Mr..
| Breckinridge's eminent position, the ad-
vantages of birth and education he enjoyed
and his unusual natural gifts. He reviewed
| briefly Mr.. BreCkinridge's career, referring
| to his two marriages. His second mar
riage. he said. was TO woman so estimable
| that in the midst of this case the defendant
! could not forbear a tribute in his voice and
his manner to his deceased wife and the
mother of his seven children. Mr.. Carlisle
| showed that at the time of the meeting in
| 1884 Mr.. Breckenridge was forty-seven
wears old and a man of wide and varied eX-
perience. In addition he had a happy home;
| that he was beloved by his wife and chill
dren lie confessed on the witness stand
| that no man ever had less excuse for the
! wrong ne had done than he had. This was
| the man who met this school girl on the
| train.
The First Letter to Defendant.
Mr.. Carlisle then went TO the communica-
ton sent to the defendant by The plaintiff
! from the Wesleyan College. He had al
luded to the admission defendant said the
plaintiff had made to him respecting her
/ relations with Mr.. Rodes. Mr. Rodes was
dead, and they could not obtain his testi-
mony; they had. however. the letters writ
ten by the plaintiff to Mr.. RodeS. and the
jury could examine them and see If they
bore any evidence of improper relations.
/ Mrs. Brown mad testified to the Difference
which cnara cterized Mr.. Rodes manner to-
ward the .plaintiff. Some time in 1888
RodeS began writing the plaintiff a letter
asserting his right to compel her to marry
him, in accordance with their agreement. 1t
was natural that she should feel alarmed at
the possibility of his attempting to force
her into a marriage She recalled meeting
MIR. Breckenridge. and she wrote to him for
advice and assistance. Mr.. Breckenridge had
told her that he knew her father. She had
told him her father was dead; and she
knew him to be a distinguished lawyer in
her part of the state. She says that she
was surprised and pleased at Mr.. Breckin-
ridges corning in person to see her in an
swer to her appeal He, on the contrary,
building up the second course of the struct-
ure he had started to rear, said he re-
ceived from her two communicat tons, the
first of which he did not produce the sec
ond of which he did produce, When this
letter was produced the plaintiff looking at
1t casually. and not reading it, said That
| does not look like my handwriting" When
/ 1t was brought back to her and she read 1t
through, she said, II did not write that let
ter; pronounce 1t to be a forgery
| AT this point the usual recess was taken
| After Recess.
| After recess Mr. Carlisle took I'D the
! thread of his argument to the jury at the
/ point where 1t was broken off at adjourn
ment He spoke Of the letter Of July 20
from the plaintiff to the defendant When
J she first saw it she said she thought It
was not in her own handwriting. Later
she characterized 1t as a forgery To meet
/ this the defense had put on experts to
/ testify that the letter was genuine The
+ jury, H. continued, had seen upon what
; the experts had based their opinions and
they saw that their science was no. an
exact science, and contained nothing more
than common sense and experience The
plaintiff had brought no experts to prove il
was forgery; they We're willing to leave
| that point to the jury. In none of the
ether letters in the case was there evidence
/ of formed handwriting maintained all
! through the letter