The Portland daily press., 1894-04-07

The plalntlH continued to testify that
after the receipt of this letter she wrote
the defendant to- call upon her but he
would not. She went to see him and
talked the matter over again. She be-
came indignant and told him just what
she thought of him" (said with much
spirit.) He said he didn't see why he
shouldn't break, an engagement as other
men did.
She testified further and with much
emphasis that she is not church mem
Der and that Mr.. Robinson is, but that
she has made Christian profession.
Letters from defendant to plaintiff
written soon after the engagement were
offered in evidence and read. They were
admirable letters full of interesting talk
and quiet, earnest affection. They
showed the defendant to be ready
writer. He was at Lincolnville when
he wrote them. He expressed the hope
that she would not go to work in the
shop any more and that if he had his
way she should not "Iook at the outside
of the building"
Another letter was produced and read.
1t was written after the defendant had
received word from Attorney Chapman
and Sheriff Cram that he must stand
trial for breach of promise. The letter is
very distant, bitter, sarcastic and ably
written. 1t expressed great surprise that
a girl should value her affections at
$4,000 in the present situation, that his
Lo, "A
that he was no schemer and had con-
.stantly tried to do right; that he now
realized that he was liable to fall into
the snares of women like other men. He
referred to the perfdy of which women
alone can be guilty" also that he was
surprised that woman could have SO
little self-respect as to bring an action
for breach OF promise. 1t was beyond
his comprehension. He declared that
deceit and treachery are despised by all,
and that all the virtues are admired. He
expressed the determination to contest
the case to the end.
The witness further testified that
there had never been any conversation
of the same tone as that letter, that he
was steady and industrious, had said he
had money in the bank and earned $12
week, and was able to provide home.
Cross-examined by Mr.. Meaher, she
said that she first met the defendant to
speak with at a sociable at Knightyille,
when he walked home with her. She
thought she had been introduced to him
before. She had known him by sight
for some time. She was visiting relatives
in KnightvilIe. This happened about
April, the year before the engagement.
He had called infrequently, but had
made her presents at Christmas time in
the shape of work basket and pin.
He had wished them to live with his
mother after their marriage, and she had
agreed at first but after she went to live
with his mother sh objected not be-
cause of any trouble with the mother
but because she
Wanted a Home of Her Own.
(spoken with much splrit.) She had told
him she had enough to furnish home
and would rather live in two rooms than
go to his mothers.
He replied that he couldn't leave his
mother and she couldn't live alone. She
declared that q" a mother ought not to
come between man and wife,
She deuied that she had ever refused
to talk with him when he had called
and declared she had always entertained
him "the best she knew how" (said with
much emphasis and evidence of deep
feeling at that time.)
She said THAT'S lie for he didn't"
when Mr.. Meaher said he had waited for
her in the front entry that Sunday night
when she left his mothers and went
home.
The case rested here for the noon hour.
In the afternoon the plaintiff again took
the stand and Mr.. Meaher continued his
cross-examination.
She said she had worked at the King
NJ anufactur1ng company and that she
had left because she didn't choose to
stay. A question as to whether she had
trouble was ruled out by the judge. She
said the defendant came to the house the
next evening after she received that
letter. She told him that it was a dirty
mean trick, that dog couldn't have
been treated any worse than she had.
He said nothing offensive except that he
wasn't coming ack.
During conversation while they were
walking in Deering subsequent to receiv-
ing that letter she had said that she
couldn't do the work for SO many, mean
ing at his mothers house. She denied
having any quarrels with him before she
was engaged to him. She had kept com
pany with him about year She denied
that Mr.. Robinson was the cause of the
unpleasantness which prevented her GO
ing to church with him that Sunday.
She had not noticed anE change in him
till after that On that Sunday he said
she had.not been ike herself and she
said he wasn't like himself. Prior ssto
that there was no such talk.
AS to her ability to keep house she
had told the defendant that she was able
to keep house as well AS anybody. Her
first conversation about living with his
mother was prior to the engagement. Sh
1 q ~