Evening star., 1894-04-14

Street on the single point whether the
plaintiff was taken there by her. or sent
there some other way. The plaintiff said
her child was born on the 29th; the records
of the institution show that a child was
born there that day. How would the
plaintif have known of this, ten years later,
II that child was not hers? The essential
details of her story were all supported by
other testimony, although the defense had
attempted to throw a cloud of doubt over
1t without success.
He would not think Of claiming that
these sisters of the asylum, holy and good
women, could Intentionally have falsifed
He did think they might have been mis-
taken. As an example, two of the sisters
had testified that DR.. Street was never al
the asylum, but Sister Cecilia, then the
superior. whose duty it was to know such
things at the asylum, testified that DR..
Street was at the asylum twice. or on
three occasions when she came to see this
very woman. Mrs. Bergwynn. So much for
the testimony of the sisters
The Volumes of Irvfng's Books.
Mr.. Wilson referred to the famous Parkman
murder case to show that apparently the
most trifling incident may sometimes reveal
the truth. In that case the culprit was dis
covered through set of false teeth, which
all that was left of the burned body of
the murdered man. So in this case, the
volumes of Washington Irving's played a
part of vital Importance The plaintiff had
had the books at Mrs. Ketchams They
were taken away and never brought back.
Ten years later she found the books at Nor
wood after saying that she had given the
books to the sisters when she went away
from the asylum in 1885. The books were
found when looked for, and Sister Cecilia
stated on the stand that these books lad
been given to her by some girl, as she was
leaving the asylum, years ago.
The books were taken away by Mr. Stoll
and turned over TO the commissioner in
Cincinnati. and it took an order from this
court to bring them out of the custody of
the defenSe. There was undoubtedly some
uncertainty as to the girls name at the
asylum, for she was naturally doing every
thing she could to conceal her identity but
the books were undoubtedly the ones she
presented to the asylum. and came into this
case. like the false teeth in the other to be
matter of the greatest importance
ON the very doctrine of the probabilities
of the case was it reasonable to think that
the defendant did not know where the
plaintiff was when she was away to give
birth to a child of which he was the father ?
Further, the defense had wished to give
the jury the belief, by inference. that Mr.
Carlisle or MIR. Johnson had placed that all
important Christmas card in the book
Mr. Stoll interrupted the speaker to tell
him that they had not attempted to prove
anything of the sort. Mr.. Wilson answered
that there would have been no use in at
tempting any such thing but that they had
implied that very thing and that the two
lawyers never would have gone upon the
stand to disclaim any such connection with
the card unless the imputation of evil had
been cast upon them.
1t was curious thing that the card rad
come into this case attached to a deposi-
tion and not with the books. But he did
not care whit for the card There was 70
doubt about the books being the same
books and they proved conclusively that she
was at the asylum and he was the cause of
her being there.
The Child Born in Washington.
AS to the child that was born in this city,
the defendant had admitted that he paid the
doctors bill. but he did it not knowing that
live child was born, but supposng there
had been a miscarriage. What difference
did it make what he thought. They had
erdeavored to cast a doubt upon Dr. Par
sons because she did not make a record of
the birth at the health office But this
was not the plaintiff's fault. But there
was record that should have been filed in
New York and that was the record of the
defendants marriage
1t was the defendants own fault that
that record was not fled and further
more, more, the certificate contained a falsehood
IN mis- own handwriting. He could even get
eNTerts to testify that the signature of DR.
Paxton was also in his handwriting if he
chcse to offer the experts a fee of so a
49, i'e'I was an llldl expert testimony
is worth.
Coming down again to the alleged under
standing between the parties as to the
promises of marriage Mr.. Wilson asked
earnestly II 1t was among the reasonable
proba abilities that such an agreement could
ever have been entered into by the girl?
The marriage meant everything in the
world to her and there was overwhelming
evidence to show that promises were made
upon which she based all her hopes for the
future. 1t was absolutely improbable alb
solutely impossible that any such under
standing as to the promises could ever
The defendant claims that he told her
that she was not a fit woman to be his
wife. Was he any better than she? Was
he not rather worse? She had violated no
marital vows, as he had done The obli-
CATION resting upon him to marry that
woman when he could was a thousand
times stronger, Mr.. Wilson said, than he
could express.
Mr. Wilson then repeated the sequel to
the story that Nathan told to David. which
he told to the jury yesterday. David had
debauched Bathsheba and then he made
her his wife and she bore him a son, Solo
mon. David did the just thing by Bath
sheba. Why might not Mr.. Breckenridge
have done the same thing by Madeline
Pollard? He should have married her.
Miss POIlnrd's Devotion.
Speaking of the devotion of Miss Pollard,
Mr.. Wilson referred to the poem of Roger
and l." the rhythmical story of the tramp
and his dog. He spoke of the fidelity of
the dog, who had starved himself to death
for the man who had never done him a
Kindness. He spoke of a woman's devotion
twining the tendrils of her heart around
man; her heart breaking when he was un-
kind to her. He referred to the story Of
Hester Prince, and the young minister
who was put on the platform to address her
and implore her to tell who was the author
of her sorrow, her shame
Hester Prime shook her head; she would
not tell. He pleaded with her eloquently
but she wouldn't tell. But that man did
not put her away; he had the heart of
David: he had a conscience. They kept
them somewhat together. Yet this defend
ant, who was the author of all this wom-
ans shame and sorroW. came before this
jury to backen and villify the woman
whom he has destroyed.
Final Appeal for Verdict.
What, he asked. are they to do in this
case? They could have no more of these
reparatiors in the way Absalom dealt with
Ammon. In those days the way would
have been simple There would have heen
no jury. But the law now provides anoth-
er way; not the javelins of the servants of
AbSaiom. but the jdyelins of their verdict