Evening star., 1894-04-14
THE LAST DAY
Continued from First Page.)

CONTINUED from First Page)
dress. Miss Wilson. 56 North Upper street
Lexington, KY"
Mr.. Wilson was referring later to the fact
that the defendants testimony was contra
dicted by Mary Yancy and Sarah Guest
With reference to the defendants admission
that he had been to Sarah Guests house
before he knew the plaintiff, he said:
80 you see. gentlemen, the defendant was
not seduced by the plaintiff; he had been
seduced before he ever met her"
Mr.. Breckinridge Interrupts.
Mr.. Breckinridge showed much interest in
this statement OF Mr.. Wilson's, and inter
rupted the speaker
Now, If your honor please" he said
leaning forward in his chair and addressing
the court, there is no such testimony in
this case. 1 said l at the house of
Sarah Guest before / was there with this
plaintiff, but 1 never said 1 was there with
any other woman, or there for the same
purpose before. was not asked that ques-
ton
Il believe" said Judge Bradley, that
that is all there Is in evidence"
1T is urged Mr.. Wilson. "a fair matter
of inference in arguing the case
There is no such testimony" persisted
Mr.. Breckenridge. 'and it is not a fair in
You had better have stated that" said
Mr.. Wilson, when on the with stand"
You did not ask that question:" said Mr..
Breckenridge.
Il am" continued Mr.. Wilson, drawing
legitimate inference. You cannot" he
repeated. turning to the defendant, testify
now."
Il am not testifying," said Mr.. Breckin-
ridge again. This is not fair inference.
You did not ask me the question"
Judge Bradley remarked that he thought
this was a fair matter of argument.
There was not the slightest testimony
L ha
pose" said Mr.. Breckinridge again, before
subsidng.
Why" asked Mr.. ston. did you not ask
that question? p
Suppose" said Mr.. Wilson, II had asked
that question-who you were there with,
What woman you were there with-there
would have been an uprising of lawyers"
Mr.. Wilson said he knew what was
proper and in asking the questions had not
transcribed the limits of propriety.
continuing Mr.. Wilson said that all this
might be naturally. deduced by inference
from the evidence In the case. The COM
mandments of God were written upon tab
lets or stone. and one of them was this:
Thou shalt not commit adultery" and an
other one was this: Thou shalt not bear
false witness against thy neighbor" Was
II not reasonable that a man who had
violated the one should seek refuge in his
defense in violation of the other?
The Contract of Marriage
Having disposed of the credibility that
should attach to the testimony of the de-
fendant. Mr.. Wilson said he would now
take up the last theory of the defense The
defendant had admitted that there was a
contract of marriage. but insisted that it
was entered into under a mutual agree
ment that ii was not to be fulfilled The
defendant had claimed that they were
wearied of each other, and that the plan
was that they should die out of each others
lfe Ii was most remarkable way of
.nf sla1 9th ~.
among people and tell them that they were
going 70 be married. II they wanted to
separate. why didn't one go to the right
and the other to the left? Why should
they go around together telling everybody
that they were going to be man and wife?
Where was the necessity of imposing such
a mOnstrous deception as this upon their
friends? 1t was most ridiculous plea.
The burden of proving that such condi-
ton or affairs existed rested upon the de-
fense. Mr.. Wilson denounced in unmeas-
ured terms this theory as a silly and weak
fabric raised up to meet the eyigencies of
the case. In view of all the evidence in this
case, could the jury honestly say that even
the presumption was in favor of it? Wheth-
er 1t was true or not, this silly, stupid and
idiotfc pretenSe of defense rested solely
for its foundation upon the unsupported
word of the defendant. Were the natural
proba bilttieS of the case in favor of such a
state or affairs being true? The whole idea
was full of Inconsistencies that could rot
possibly be reconciled. In order that this
agreement should be a defense 1t must he
conclusively proved that it was a mutual
agreement between the parties. 1t makes
no difference at all what was in the defend-
ants mind; II the plaintiff accepted these
promises in good faith, the responsibility
for them rests upon the defendant. If the
promises were not TO be fulfilled, what VAS
the necessity for ever putting up such a
sham? Look at the proba bilities of this
story and then at the improbabilities, Do
you mean to say that a girl who was about
N hRp0n1a q Dont thnr
the office of the chief of police to have such
promises made, If she knew they were never
to be kept? The plaintiff has denied all
this Do you mean to say from the testi-
mony in this case that you believe the de-
fendant has proved 1t by a preponderance of
the evidence? If he has not proved ~ so
then it disappears entirely as defense from
this case.
Mr.. Wilson then asked again who this
plaintiff was, and what. The lawyers for
the defense had characterized her i'm mo
delicate words But no matter what vile
names they might bestow upon her the
defendant had made her what she was He
had spoken of her to Mrs. Blackburn.
though, as of humble parentage but an
honest respectable girl. He then referred
to the humble surroundings among which
the plaintiff had had her origin Still she
might have accomplished a great deal i'm
this world for she was ambitions girl.
and the fact that she had not made the
best of her chances only made the defend
ants crime the blacker. Ambition has
made the world what it is, but it proved
the destruction for this poor girl He re-
ferred 10 the contract with Rodas made in
pursuance of her hungering desire TO get
an education, and then to her meeting Win
the defendant.
That First Meetin.;
He referred to the two accou,ts-tbat Of !
the plaintiff and that of the defendant-of
their first meeting, saying that the differ |
erces in the statements were immaterial. |
She said that she had written to Mr. Breck- |
inrdge about the Rodes matter and in re- |
sponse to the letter he came to see her. He |
said that she wrote him letter inviting
him to come. He said she wrote two letters
and this was the second of the two She
says she only wrote one, and did not write |
this. So they had had a controversy over |
the letter. So far as the letter itself was |
concerned, 1t was, he maintained, of no con- |
sequence whatever in the case, though the |
defense seemed to regard it of the greatest |
cOnsequence-if she did write 1t, and she de- |
mel il.
He rehearsed Miss Pollard's statements on |
the stand when she declared the letter a |
forgery. The defense. however, insisted |
that II was genuine letter. He, however |
said it was a forgery. He did not know !
who did ii, but he knew it was a forgery |
He declared that it was manufactured for |
the purpose of sustaining their third plea in |
the case. The defense had been trying in |
every way to prove that plea, and this was |
rot the only piece of rascality that had !
been offered for this purpose. They had
seen that they had brought forward men
w hn ha6 sd f,r