The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-03-28

lJluS AldluldClUillS 0Oiiipdtlg VI COl-
umbuS, o.
sex is outlawed from the room, but
after the court had adjourned two
fashionably attired women slipped in at
the side door under the guidance of a
bailiff and stood for five minutes star
ing at Col. Breckenridge. where he sat
in consultation with his lawyers, as
children are accustomed to stare at the
animals in a managerie. In the objec-
tions to the dispositions for the defense,
both sides were even. Judge Bradley eX-
cluded several and expressed regret that
he had no power to quash them all be-
cause of their needless obscenity. Being
stanch presbyterian, moreover, he
suggested that the newspaper cores
pondents should expurgate their reports
in the interest of public morality.
Two Witnesses Scored.
Regarding the sweeping denial of the
right to take any dispositions, de bene
esse, under the act of congress creating
the court, the Judge said that the
Judiciary act of 1879 conferred the right
in broad terms upon any party to any
civil act in any court of the United
States. 1t could not be disputed that
this was a court of the United States
maintained that right would justify him
in continuing to enforce it until a high
er court overruled the practice. There
were other grounds upon which he sus-
tanned the regularity of the dispositions
as a whole. Objection had been made
to the deposition of one Brand because
he refused TO answer certain questions
concerning a woman who had introduced
him to Miss Pollard. He said that he
did not give W a FRIED
woman and then persisted that he did
not know her name. The judge said
that it appeared that instead of refusing
to answer the man did not know or was
lying. He continued, saying that While
the direct examination of the witnesses
the plaintiff, he had refused to answer
question whether he had taken liberties
with her while riding. What object he
could have had in refusing to answer
If the answer would have injured the
plaintiff the judge could not see, since
from his own testimony he was utterly
lacking in moral sense, admitting that,
although a married man, he was accus-
toned to visit houses of ilI-fame. The
Judge overruled this objection, relating
that there was nothing rejecting upon
Miss Pollard in the testimony unless ii
was that she had consented to associate
with such a disreputable character as
the witness admitted himself to be.
The deposition Of one Kaufman was
also admitted, but the judge spoke very
sharply of these last two, saying that
they were utterly unfit to be read be-
fore a court and that he would gladly
exclude them if he could. and expressed
the hope that the counsel would see fit
TO omit the disgracefully obscene matter
in them.
He sustained the objections which had
been made to the dispositions of John
TDf- nd TDr- I axrrfS- hot
they were based on heresay. DR.. Lewis
is the physician who testified that Col.
Swope late republican candidate for
congress in the Lexington district, had
asked him to perform a criminal oper-
alton upon a Miss Pollard.
The dispositions of Mrs. Miller and
of RosselIe who had been engaged to
Miss Pollard while she was in the
Wesleyan institute, were admitted, the
judge commenting that the plaintiff had
placed her character and her maturity
in a measure in question by that clause
of the declaration which averred that
she had been seduced by the defendant.
and that she was a mere girl when Col.
Breckenridge first met her.
Each side filed objections to the rul-
ings against it.
The Judge MOrnlizes.
Then Judge Bradley made a few re-
marks in the interest of public morality
as he said: 1.-The court has been deluged
with anonymous letters in this case he
began. 1T is said that any one who
would write an anonymous letter should
not expect to have any notice taken Of
it and would do almost anything mean.
Some of these letters, however seem
TO come from females and to be dictated
by good motives" Many of them re-
ferred to the publication of details Of the
trial, and while the court could exercise
no censorship over the press, he sug-
gested that papers should omit the i'm
proper details, as he thought some Of
these details, if published, would subject
the papers to exclusion from the mails
as obscene matter Moreover, 1t was al
most a calamity to the city of Wash
ington and the country at large that
such matter should be carried broad
cast into its homes.
These preliminaries having been finished
Attorney Stoll proceeded to read the de-
position of Joseph Bailey, clerk of the
Woodland county court at Versailles.
From the records OF the court the clerk
had testified that in 1884 there were in
dictments for murder against Ollie and
r. p. Brown and that Col. Breckinridge
had been one of the defending attorneys.
1t appeared that the trial was i'm progress
on Aug. 5. the day upon which Miss Pol
lard had testified that the colonel had
taken her to the house of Sarah Gaess
in Lexington; also on Aug. H. 13 and 16
The cross-examination of the clerk read
by Attorney Farrell of Lexington, de-
veloped the information that during this
trial Col. Breckenridge had frequently
driven over from Lexington, returning
at night, and sometimes bringing his
wife. He had attended the whole trial
of Ollie Brown, although some OF the