The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-04-20
EQUAL TO A CHALLENGE
OUTCOME OF an INCIDENT or THE
BRECKINRID0H trial.
Attorney Charles n. stoii Writes q Severe
Letter TO Judge Jsre wilson Refuses
to Accept Kctraction OF Remarks.

lcad 10 a more sensational episode, says
the New York Herald OF yesterday. Is
indicated by letter which Attorney
Charles H. Stoll now in this city, has
addressed 10 Judge "Jere" Wilson. In tho
days Of southern chivalry 1t would have
been construed as a challenge to mortal
combat. and there IS possibility that
even in these advanced days 1t may have
startling dcnouement.
bad blood" developed among counsel
IN the Breckenridge trial and gave rise
20 sensational incident toward the
close when Judge "Jere" Wilson, In the
nnal argument. imputed improper con-
duct 10 Attorney Charles II. Stoll. OF the
defence
The manner I'm which the young Ken
lucky lawyer resented the disparaging
remarks on the part OF Miss Pollard s
senior counsel led the spectators TO ex-
pcct a personal encounter between the
two jurists Excitement ran high, and
the rumors current during the early part
Of the trial 10 the effect that some OF the
lawyers were armed were revived.
There Is another court beyond TINS
one. in which you shall answer 10 me Tor
this" had been Mr.. Stoll's words 10 Judge
Wilson. and their significance was IN
creased by reference TO the onenueu
LAWYER coming from part OF the unlted
states where resort to the code oueho
Is not obsolete.
EXTRACTION DIDN'T SATISFY HIM.
Judge Wilson made a formal reractoh
before the jury at the beginning OF the
next session, which was couched In IAN
sliaee that did not quite satisfy the merry
Kentuckian or his friends. However, Mr..
stou forebore acting further until the
verdict In his clients case should be rem
dered by the jury.
Tnon the advice Of Mr.. Butterworth
and Colonel Breckenridge another forty
eight hours was afforded Judge wilson
after the trial i'm which TO make a more
complete retraction and apology. This
no, being forthcoming Mr.. Stoll address
cd letter TO his antagonist. to which
no reply or denial Of any Of the facts
contained therein has been received so
far.
In this letter. dated April l6 at No
1725 . street. y. w, Mr. Stoll first refers
10 The fact that the remarks were made
in the closing speech and alludes TO
another trial in which Judge Wilson
was attorney. Then he says
surprised at the unexpected attack,
may not have used language quite ex-
pressive enough when ] denounced your
action as vile and Infamous, although
upon elaboration 1 am inclined now 10
think that, considering the duty Of coun-
sci 20 client. and the possibility at all
times OF iuiuring his case by bringing
personal grievances into It. | said quite
enough 10 show. first. you were deliber-
ately making a charge. and. second. my
contempt for the man who was making
&c.
1T IS true that when the court adjourn
ca for lunch I had fully determined 10
can YOU 20 personal account. notwith-
standing your gray hairs. but TO do this
J intended TO wait until the verdict of
tlc jury was returned.
AFTER consultation with my client
left the matter with Mr.. Butterworth,
senior counsel in the case. with the as
surance that until the trial closed l
would DO nothing except upon his ad
vice.
Knowing that Mr.. Butterworth had
spoken 10 you during recess / had reason
t0 suppose that you would either make
Fun and unconditional denial OF any
purpose 10 insinuato that / had been a
party 90 or connived at wrong. and
utter some words expressive of a sense
of regret that language had been used
fI0m which such purpose could be pre-
sNri. on else that you would have the
hood 10 stand by what you had
al not I'm the heat Of discussion, az
go. would have the world believe but ia
cold blood. with an evident and well
planned purpose to cast a stigma upon
my character.
81 am sorry you were not gentleman
enough 20 DO the one thing or man
enough 10 DO the other
1.-THE low estimate which you seem TO
place upon character as manifested by
that which you yourself have developed.
did not show you the necessity for doing
that which gentleman always does
when he has inadvertently given offence,
and the cowardly instincts Of the cur
which seem TO have predominated in your
nature did not give you the courage TO
face what you knew would be presented
20 you.
upon the rcassembling Of court your
language was as follows.
"'Gonuemen of the jury, il is the ex-
pericnce Of everybody that in the heat
Of discussion and In the presentation of
facts ne probably conveys impressions
thit he did not Intend 10 convey. j had
no thought Of insnUaung that Mr.. Stol
had forged that letter. or that he had
procured It TO be forged. 1 dlsclaim any
purpose Of charging Mr. Stoll with such
a crime ! had in my mind TO suggest
10 you and 20 show to you how easy
10 IS for these things TO be done; how
easy 10 Isl TO get the handwriting Of an
other and from that handwriting 10 make
an imitation OF perpetrate a forgery.
From this 10 will be seen that the
only insinuation which you disclaim
is that I forged a letter or procured it
TO be forged or that you purposed to
charge me with such a crime
But Immediately YOU say to the Jury
that your purpose was 10 suggest 10 them
how easy the alleged forged letter could
have been manufactured from material
which YOU said l had i'm my possession;
from which statement your evident pur-
pose was TO convey the impression that
this alleged crime was at least commit
tel with my knowledge IL not with my
sanction.
DECLINES THE APOLOGY.
Your retraction. II such II was intend
"a 20 be. contains no word indicating any
sense of regret 80 having said that which
you knew had deeply wounded me. and
therefore ! must decline 10 accent what
YOU have said as a proper apology for
the offence committed
AS two days have now elapsed and |
nothing further has been heard from you |
am compelled by that feeling Of man |
hood which was instilled in me by a |
brave father. whom j have so recently |
laid 20 rest and by that sense Of dufy |
which ! owe 70 wife. children. brothers
and friends az home. TO say 10 Won i'm
plain ianguaee-first, that you deliberately
stated what you knew 10 DE untrue when
you said 10 that jury and TO the world
hat the letter in question was forgery
"Ny reasons for saying this are mar
the astu-c mind which Is not wholly in
rlfrrIfffIo with the char. afar ,.l,foh' 49,. |