Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1894-04-04
THE LIE DIRECT.
Mrs. Lowell, the Typewriter,
Confronts the Colonel.
She Says She Did Direct Envelopes
for Him to Madeline.
More Of The Doings Of the Lecturer on Social
Purify"

WAsHINGroN, April 3.-The mystery OF
the alleged letter beginning, "My Deal
Sister Louise" pervaded everything abou
the circuit court this morning when the
| trial of the Breckinridge- Pollard case be-
gan.
When the court adjourned yesterday af
ternoon, Judge Wilson, Miss Pollard's at
torney. say that it was in 1856 he had taker
to be copied by typewriter in the capito
Louise" Breckenridge denied all knowl
edge of such letter and said he had NJ
"Dear Sister Louise
Wilson also further asked him if he hat
not taken to this same typewriter a bundle
| of letters addressed to Miss Pollard, Il
North Upper street, Lexington, Ky, ant
Col. Breckinridge denied this also. The
period in which the alleged letter was writ
ten was covered in the statement of Col
Breckenridge that he had no relations ant
no correspondence with Miss Pollard ir
1886.
Additional interest was given to the name
Louise" in the alleged letter, because
Miss Pollard claims that Louise Wilson
was her assumed name when in Cincinnati
in 1885. Wilson said that the name of ths
typewriter who copied the sister Louise,
letter, which, however, he was unable tC
produce, was Mrs. Lowell, and this morn
ing when court convened, Mrs. Lowell
who is now a clerk in the treasury, wa,
present With q friend. They sat next tt
Miss Pollard and Miss Ellis.
Maj. Butterworth asked Judge Bradley
to decide whether evidence about the sister
Louise's letter was competent.
Mr.. Wilson said he proposed to put the
witness Louise Lowell on the stand on the
ground that the plaintiff was not in posses
sion of the knowledge she now had at ths
time OF her testimony in chier. 1t was moi
the purpose of the plaintiff, he said, to play
any tricks or to take the defence by sur
prise, and the defendant wouli he given
ample opportunity to make any explana
be chose concerning the letter.
Carlisle said he did not learn the name OF
the witness and did not see her until Sun.
day morning. Butterw orth said he was no,
criticizing the counsel but be thought the
alleged contents of an alleged letter should
not be placed in evidence until it was known
what the plaintiff expected to prove by it.
Judge Bradley in rendering his decision
said he found authority for the interiectior
of proof concerning the existence of doc
ument that might be lost or destroyed. He
therefore decided that proof tending te
prove that such letter as that beginning
my Dear Sister Louise" had teen writer
might be introduced.
Wilson called Mrs. Lowell to the stand
She said she had known Col. BreckinridRe
since February, 1886. when she had smal
Office in the capitol where she did steno-
graphy and typewriting. She had done
work for Col. Breckinridg, and was &C.
quainted with his handwriting.
In answer to Judge Wilson, Mrs. Lowell
said the defendant had brought to her al
the time indicated a letter to be copied
The manuscript WAS in the defendant's
handwriting. The witness said she returned
to Col. Breckinri1ge the manuscript and
the copy of the letter in question. She also
did other work for defendant, such as ad-
dressing envelopes.
"Ah," said Wilson, "what did you put on
envelopes?"
"Miss Pollard, 36 North Upper Street,
Lexington, KY" was the answer, direct
contradiction Of testimony given by defend
ant.
Miss Pollard smiled and there was buzz
of interest throughout the room. Breckin-
ridge busted himself writing.
"Now," said Wilson, ''state whether YOU
made q memorandum Of work done by you
for Col. Breckinridge?"
81 did," said Mrs. Lowell, and she pro-
duced little blank book and read out of it
the address given.
"Why did you put that name down.
said Judge Wilson.
Feeling sure that should hear more of
Miss Pollard and not being willing to trust
my memory, put it down."
Now tell what those envelopes looked
like?"
"They were small envelopes, not such as
a business man would use, and yellow with
age"
How was the first communication he
brought to You addressed?"
my Dear Sister Louise" said the Wit
ness.
Butterworth and Shelby made strenuous
objection to the admission of the testimony
concerning the contents of the letter.
Shelby contended that the letter should be
produced.
"We haven't it. 1t was given to the de-
Ieuu6ut W Uc Hallcu W lie pl4luuu, o0lO
Wilson.
"If mailed the letter to the plaintiff,
how can produce the letter." said Breck-
inridge.
"You and 1 will have a little converse
ton about that after q while," retorted
Wilson.
Judge Bradley ruled out the testimony a.
to contents Of letter.
Judge Wilson then asked the witness to
tell by her memorandum book how many
times she had done typewriting work for
the defendant and she said that her reco d
showed she had done work for Col. Breck-
;nridge Is or 16 times, but that did net
really represent the whole number of tim, s
she had written letters for him.
On cross examination Mrs. Lowell said
she had written Miss Pollard's name ard
address on the fly leaf of her little memo
randum book because she thought that she
might have to write ,he name again in her
work and she wanted to remember it for
that reason. Mrs. Lowell said she kept no
record of Miss Pollard's name IN her regu-
lar accounts nor had she kept record that
she had written letter for Breckenridge
beginning My Dear Sister Louise. There
was nothing in her regular account book 10