Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-04-10

pearance Of the schoolgirl to inspire MN
with alarm or give him warning. There
was nothing In the interview. "a deserioea
by either. that was not proper, 'hoos"
there were some differences In the TWO
accounts OF the interview. which wouih
be made much use OF In ar
The defence attempted TO throw
Oft right there the responsibility Tor TINS
first interview. He said that she accosteu
him first. He even had n reason Tor go
ing 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. Breckinridges
eminent position. the advantages oil prth
and education he enjoyed. and his unu-
sual natural gifts. He reviewed briefly
Mr. BreckInridge's career. referring 10
his two marriages. His second marriage
he said, was to a woman so estiHaple
that I'm the midst Of this case the defend
ant could not forbear tribute In his
voice and his manner to his deceased
wife and the mother Of his seven chill
dren. Mr.. Carlisle showed that at the
time Of the meeting in 1884 Mr.. Breckin-
ridge was Il years old and man OF
wide and varied experience. In addition
he had "a happy home; he was beloved by
his wife and children. He confessed on
the wtness-stand that no man ever han
less excuse for the wrong he had zone
than he had. This was the man VINO met
this schoolgirl on the train.
FIRST LETTER TO DEFENDANT.
Mr.. Carlisle then went to the communi-
cation sent to the defendant by the plain
tin from the Wesleyan College. He had
alluded 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 testl-
mony; they had. however. the letters writ
ten by the plaintiff to Mr.. Rodes. and the
Jury could examine them and see II they
bore any evidence of improper relations.
Mrs. Brown had testified to the Difference
which characterized Mr.. Rodes's manner
toward the plaintiff. Some time In 1913
Rodes began writing the plalntin letter
asserting his right to compel her to marry
him, in accordance with their agreement.
II was natural that she should feel alarm
ed at the possibility Of his attempting to
force her into n marriage. She recalled
meeting Mr.. breckenridge, and she wrote
to him for advice and assistance. MI
Breckenridge had told her that he khe"
her father. She had told him that her
father Vas dead: and she knew him 10 DC
distinguished lawyer In her part OF the
State. She says that she was surprised
and pleased at Mr.. Breckinridges coming
I'm person to see her In answer 10 her
appeaI He. on the contrary Duiluihs w
the second course OF the structure ne nau
started to rear said he received from her
two communications; the nrst Oh winch ,ie
did NOT nroduce: the second of which ne
J,d produce. when this letter was pro-
duced the plaintiff. looking at 1t casually.
~ said 'Inat GOES nOt
look like my handwriting" When IL was
brought back to her and she read IL
through. she said, II did not write thd'
letter; pronounce 1t TO be a forgery
Al this point the usual recess was taken
Afta1 recess Mr. Carlisle took up the
brad of argument to the jury at the
noint where IL was broken of at ADJOURN
rrent. He spoke Of the letter OF Juiy Gun
from the plaintiff 10 the defendant. Wneh
she first saw 1t she SAID she thousht IL
was not I'm her own handwriting. Later
she characterized 1t as a forgery. TO meet
this the defence had put on experts TO tes-
tify that the letter was genuine. The
iiry. he continued, had seen upon what
tho EXPERTS based their opinions. and they
saw that their science was not an exact
science and contained nothing more than
common sense and experience. The plain
tiff had brought no experts TO prove 1t
was forgery; they were willing TO leave
that point to the jury. In none OF the
Other letters in the case was their evil
dence Of formed handwriting maintained
all through the letter.
For three pages there was strained
attempt to keep the same regularity OF
handwriting throughout. something that
was not To he noted I'm the Wessie Brown
letter nor I'm the prophecy.
Mr.. Carlisle then handed TO the jury the
fac slmile OF the marriage certificate and
asked them to note the writing. and TO
especially note the surprising similarity
that existed between the portions that Mr..
breckenridge had admitted that he wrote
and those that he denied having written.
They could base their own opinions upon
this and decide for themselves the value
Of expert testimony in handwriting. The
forged letter was of but little importance
beyond the fact that 1t was not genuine.
There was but little significance in It be-
ycnd the form of certain phrases which
offered a sort Of ledge upon which the
defence had attempted 10 hang so much
meaning.
Mr.. Carlisle then read the letter TO the
fury. after stating that It was by no
means n difficult matter to manufacture
such letter with the aid OF the system
OF tracing that Is often employed in such
worse than a divorce case" in the letter
contained I'm essence the plea Of the de-
PENDANT as laid down by Mr.. Shelby in
his opening address. II this letter had
been written by the plaintiff. Mr.. Car
Isle said. and admitted by her. the de-
fence would have hung upon II the
same arguments that they have done.
Yet the matters contained In the letter
were so trivial that If the plaintiff had
not been sure that IL was not a genuine
letter OF hers she would have admitted IT.
or her denial would have been Il qualified
one. But. I'm point OF fact. she remem-
bered beyond "A doubt that she had never
written II. IL was "A curious fact that OF
all the letters written about this time
this was the only one the defence had
been able TO produce in this trial: this and
the note of 1850. In which is observable
a formed handwriting and a maturity
OF style that did not exist In the earlier
letters
Speaking OF the celebrated carriage
ride. Mr.. Carlisle said the fact that on
hot August evening the defendant brought
a closed carriage to take the plaintiff to
a concert-hall demanded explanation. but
the defendant had not attempted TO ex-
plain It, He had merely contented him
sell WIFI sdNlliS lHdl hiA fiNhth 'hb
the carriage without looking at what sort
of carriage II was. Reviewing the events
OF that night from the statements of the
plaintiff and the defendant and what hap
pened the next day. Mr.. Carlisle said:
"And from that time on until May, 1893.
she obeyed his every behest, and was
faithful to him In every way"
PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
Finally reaching the time Of the alleged
promise of marriage. Mr.. Carlisle laid
great stress on the testimony OF Mrs.
Blackburn, which, he said, the defendant
had refused to deny. He had left him
self two modes OF escape, and either one
would bring him face to face with a d.
lemma on one horn of which he must
impale himself.
He referred to the cross-examination
OF two days and a half to which Miss
Pollard had been subjected. and said 1t
was one OF the most difficult tests to
which the human mind could be put
There were only two things that would
protracted cross-examination. one was
a trained mind. Il wonderful ability to
think. knowledge OF lawyers and their
ways, in fact all that was possessed by
a clever lawyer; the other was-the truth.
His client had stood the test without any
OF the qualifications of the first instance
and the fact that she had not been made