Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-03-14

woman in such d condition" answered the
witness.
Just what did you do?''
Il can't say whether / took spoon in
my right hand and a tumblsr in my left
hand or a tumbler in my right hand and
spoon in my left. This was nine years
ago, and L do not recall such triflins de-
tails, but L do recollect hat L did Tor her
all that she needed. 1t was not necessary
TO make minute examination Of the young
woman. Her appearance would make clear
to any mother or physician what her con-
dition was at the time"
Are you the Belle G. Buchanan who was
called as witness and male partial
deposition in Cincinnati in February with
reference to this case?''
Il do not remember the date, but 1 am
the Belle c. Buchanan"
Mr.. Stoll read few extracts from the
deposition and asked her If she male these
she had done so. The statements referred
to details of Miss Wilson's arrival at the
house of the witness and her bearing and
actions in the time just following her ar
rival. When he asked for the substance
of a conversation between witness and
DIR. Perry regarding Miss Wilson's condi-
ton Mr.. Wilson objected.
Il fail to see how the question is in any
way material" said Judge Bradley. This
court will take recess until O'clock"
After Recess.
The judge, the defendant and his counsel
and Messrs. Wilson and Carlisle of the
plaintiffs counsel, were promptly on nand
at the reconvening of court after recess,
but the witness was several minutes late
When she at length appeared. neither the
plaintiff nor her companion from the House
Of Mercy was present The crowd in at
tendance at the afternoon session Was the
smallest during the progress of the trial.
Instead of pursuing his almost invaridDle
practice of listening attentively to every
word said by the witness. Col. Breckinrids;e
settled himself comfortably back in his
chair and gave his undivided attention for
some time 10 perusing the various news
paper accounts OF the trial. firing at
length of reading, he allowed his eyes to
wander about the court room, seemingly
being totally oblivious of the fact ihat
there was a witness undergoing cross
examination by one of his own counsel.
Or. Belle Z. Buchanan, who was on the
stand when the court took Il recess for
luncheon, resumed the giving OF her tes-
timony at the afternoon session. She
asked as TO the examination she had made
of Miss Wilson and Mr.. Carlisle inter
jectei the remark that the witness had
already made the statement that no partic
ular examination was necessary. Mr.. Stoll
read from her deposition to show that at
the hearing in Cincinnati she had stated
that she made an examination either the
day of Miss Wilson's arrival or the day
following.
The Money Contract.
Continuing her testimony, DR.. Buchanan
said that the arrangement TO take Miss
Wilson was made with DIR. Street. but
she did not remember that there was any
definite contract that she should be paid
for board and medical attendance on sepa-
rate and distinct accounts. Witness did
not remember what the money contract
was, but thought that she received SOME
thing Ike SiO or SIS a week Whether it
was paid weekly or not she did not
member Miss Wilson stayed in her room
NEST of the time and witness took her
meals to her there, though. she rather
tarty stated to Mr.. Stoll lit was not
mentioned in the contract that l should
carry meals upstairs three times a day"
The witness was shown letter which
She identified one she had written. The
letter was shown TO the lawyers for the
plaintiff, but its contents were not made
known at this juncture. Mr.. Stoll at
tempted to prove by the witness that her
deposition in Cincinnati was taken i'm
mediately after that of DIR. Street, but
the court cut him off with the ruling that
this circumstance was not in any sense
material and If il were the defense should
not attempt to bring it out by means of
cross-eXamInation, as it was matter that
was not gone into in the examination in
chief.
Mr.. Soil then asked the witness whether
when Miss Wilson brought to her
house it was not necessary to carry her up
stairs?
THAT has all been gone over before. Mr..
Stoil' said Judge Bradley.
given in her deposition TO show that it was
necessary to carry Miss Wilson upstairs.
and also with reference to number OF
other matters in connection with Miss Will
sons visit at her house.
Mr.. Wilson Protests.
II submit" said Mr.. Wilson, that these
statements are not at all at variance with
what the witness has stated upon this
stand and 1 cannot see the reason for this
course of procedure. Why not read the en-
tire deposition? We would have no objec-
ton if il were at al worth while
When did you come to Washington. DIR.
Buchanan continued Mr.. Stoll.
Last Thursday"
Have you seen the plaintiff since you
have been here"
Yes, sir
well. l have been with her every day in
the court room l have also seen her In
the evenings
''IS that all?''
And at other times"
AT dinner time. did you say?'
mo, sir; at other times"
Were you not with her last Sunday?"
Il was. l was out with her in a street
car"
Where did you go?"
Your homer, | must object" interposed
Mr.. Carlisle. rising at this point. This
witness has admitted frankly that she has
been with the plaintiff and has talked with
ner 1GeeIy. L cannot, therefore, see the
necessity for continued cross-examination
on this point"
and l sustain the objection" said Judge
Bradley. After few unimportant ques-
tons as TO her business relations with Dr.
Perry, this witness was excused
Mrs. Robcrison's Deposition
Mr.. Carlisle then stated mat he wished
to read the deposition of Mrs Westiauna
Robertson of Cincinnati, Ohio, taken by the
defendant. There was no objection. and Mr.
Carlisle proceeded to read the deposition
The dspOnent stated that in January. 1881
she attended Wesleyan College, near Gin
cinnat Ohio. In January of that year She
received a letter from Miss Pollard, to be
opened the day depCnent GRADUATED The
letter was opened in the folio wing summer
She last the letter when Nv Robert
son handed IL to the defendant, lust when
deponent could not say. The deposition re-
cited that Mr.. Stoll produced the letter
when the depOnent remarked that he did
not get it by fair means. She never au-
thOrized Its publication. the 1eponent
identified the letter, and stated that in the
summer of 1884 she and the pilintif cor
responded quite often. In July or August
of that year she addressed the p!aintir as
Miss Madeline V. Pollard Bra ckinri1sc Cx-
planning that she so addressed it ont Of fun
The plaintiff had told her shat h II family
were great admirers of Col. Bre ,xiurilge
who was then called the star of KEN
lucky