Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-03-13
THEY HAD NO ARMS
Continued from First Page.)
proceeded with the regular business of the
trial.

Suppress the Dispositions.
Judge Bradley went on to speak of the
matter of the admission of the Kentucky
dispositions offered by plaintiff. which was
the subject of the argument yesterday
afternoon. The judge decided that the
dispositions might not be admitted as evil
dence in this case on the ground that they
were not in the handwriting of the COM
miss ioner or of the witness made in the
presence or the commissioner. In 1883.
when the statute was drawn, said Judge
Bradley, the typewriter was not dreamed
OF and no provision was made for deposit
tons unless they were reduced to writing
by the commissioner or In his presence
The statute, however, is as it is and must
be lived up to strictly. He would conse-
qUentiy sustain the motion of the defense
to suppress the dispositions.
MIR. Carlisle to enter an exception
TO the ruling OF the court. He then stated
that he desired to read the deposition of
Mrs. Mary s. Logan, taken In Cincinnati,
but that he would wait to hear if there
were any objection from the defense.
Mr. Butterworth and Mr.. Stoll explained
to the court the circumstances under which
the deposition was taken. According to
their story the deposition was taken stem
Geographically and afterwari reduced 10 type
writing. 1t was agreed between counsel
that both sides should have a chance to
consider the deposition before submitting it
TO the court. He asked that defense be
given a brief time to look over the deposit
to writing.
Mrs. Logan's Deposition.
Mr.. Carlisle stated that he was In Cincin-
natl when the deposition was taken, but
that he did not conduct the examination.
This was done by the local counsel, Mr..
Guy Mallon. He denied that any agree
ment had been entered into. and he also re-
cited the circumstances under which the
deposition was taken.
Mrs. Logan, Mr.. Carlisle stated, was a
physician before her marriage to Mr.
Thomas Logan. and was called upon to
prove the Identity Of the plaintiff as an in
mate of Norwood Founding Hospital Mrs
Logan was in bad health when the deposit
ton was taken, and was utterly exhaust led
BY the consequent strain. She was cross
examined at great length. and much of the
croSS-eXaHination was of a sort that, if it
had been delivered before this court, would
have been ruled out by the court of its own
motion as improper evidence.
There was good deal Of difference be-
tween counsel IS 70 the circumstances of
the deposition. and Mr.. Stoll found 1t neces-
sary to read from the record of the hearing
in Cincinnati to prove the point he was try
Ing to make, namely, that the agreement
between counsel covered the deposition of
Mrs. Logan, as well as Drs. Buchanan and
Perry.
Examination and Croxs-Examinatio
According to Mr.. Carlisle the record of
the examination in chief covered something
less than thirty pages of typewriting, while
the record of the cross-examlna ton went
ever leo pages. Mrs. Logan at the time
characterized the efforts of counsel for the
defense as a persecution. Mr.. Stol this
morning read number of passages from
the record of the hearing when Mrs. Logan
v as examined to give the court a complete
idea of whatever agreements counsel had
entered il TO.
The statements of counsel and the reading
of the records occupied considerable
length of time. much TO the disappointment
of the audience. who were anxious for
sCmething far more interesting than this
rather long-winded and technical discussion
of legal question. What they wanted was
the contents of Mrs. Logan's deposition,
not a long dissertation of her physical
condition when the deposition was taken.
The defense claimed that the deposition
was incomplete. as they had not been given
a full and sufficient opportunity to cross
examine the Nitness. who had been taken
il: before her testimony was concluded.
Mr.. Stoii asked for few moments to
discuss the situation with his client and
associates to see whether they had any OBJ
lection to make to the deposition.
Five heads We're bent close together about
Col. Disadvantages place, and then Mr..
Stoll said that they had nothing more to
say upon the matter.
Ground of Objection.
Then I understand" said Judge Brad
ley, that you base your objection solely
on the ground that the defense did not have
chance to cross-examine Mrs. Logan as
fully as they might wish"
That is right"
Mr.. Carlisle argued that the defense had
had all the opportunity they needed and
that if the examination had been conduct
ed before this court the defense would have
been shut off before. He then went on to
state the purposes for which the deposit
ton would be submitted.
Objection Overrulcd.
Judge Bradley interrupted Mr. Carlisle
to sum up the matter. 1t was apparent
that the rights of the defendant had all
been thoroughly protected and guarded, so
long, at least, as eime and space were con-
cerned. The examination. he said, filled
less than thirty pages. while the cross
examination ran beyond one hundred. The
plaintiffs examination had lasted about
an hour on a Friday afternoon. while the
defense had had all day Saturday. If the
objection was based solely upon the claim
that the rights of the defense had not been
protected he must overrule the objection.
I'VE would note an exception to the rul-
ing of the court" said Mr.. Butterworth.
Mrs. Logan's Deposition Read.
Mr.. Carlisle then lead the deposition Of
Mary n. S. Logan. 1t stated that defend
ant had been a practicing physician in
Cincinnati for several years before ter
marriage. he- name then being Mary n.
Street. She was at 142 West Sth street
about a year. and subsequently, moved to
other locations She thought 1t was in
1888 or 1884 she moved. In 1854 and 1885
her office was at 245 West Tth street
While at 18th street a girl. expecting to be
confined in q short while. called on her
for treatment. She thought il was In
February. woman came to her. d young
woman, who gave her name as Miss Monica
BurgOyne
The plaintiff was present at the examina-
ton in Cincinnati, and Mrs. Logan said
there were some things about the plaintiff
reminding her of Miss Burgoyne but she
could not identify her positively. OF course
she had gown older and changed. The
young woman said she was called Mona"
for short She pronounced her name Bur
gwynn." The call was made during de-
ponent's Office hours. but she could not
remember the hour or whether IL was
morning or evening. She did not remember
whether Miss Burgoyne was entered on
he books as patient or not. There were
no charges made against her, and no bay
ment. The woman said she was about to
be confined with her first child; that her
husband had died or something fatal had
happened to him, and there was some
family reason to conceal the matter: the
deponent believed her Deponent said her
caller went away, and witness did not ex-
pect to see he- again.
The deponent continuing, said she had
not prescribed for her or examined her 70
determine whether her condition was sucb
as she had described.
Subsequent Visits,
r1c.<. %1vv<