Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-04-09
LAWYERS NOW TALK
Continued from First Page.)

Ccnt:aued from First Page)
perate; he believed that the promises then
made had been more than redeemed. The
outline he had then given had been proved
by credible witnesses other than his I'M
fortunate client. He wanted to call atten-
tio1 to the importance of this case to all
of them. Then were, as Mr.. Butterworth
had said, three parties to this case-the
plaintiff, the defendant and the community
He accepted that proposition OF Mr. But
terworth. He wanted the jury to consider
what that community was and what Its
fenCaL t; what it had IL right to expect of
them; what each owed to the community
Interest of the Community.
The jury. he said was drawn from and
| represented the community. The jury sat
here to represent the community. In this
case there was a wider community than in
ordinary cases-the people of the United
States. From the first day they had assem-
bled here the press Of the United States had
been provided with two rows of tables an
| evidence of the interest the community
throughout the United States had in the
case. Neither party belonged to this Dis
trict. The plaintiff was a Kentuckian, born
/ in the congressional district represented by
the defendant. She never came here until
the year 1887. The defendant never came
here except upon public business to repre-
sent his constituents in the councils of the
| man of humble origin; the defendant was a
man of high position, of distinguished origin
and was distinguished man, known
throughout the United States. 1t would be
his duty later on to point out what the COM
munity had a right to expect from these
parties, and who had the most debts I'M
paid.
He then addressed himself to what had
been developed as to the life of the plaintiff
He first reminded them that the defendant
was a man OF prominence and wide infu-
ence. He reminded them of how much it
was to his interest to find out and to prove
anything that might be to the dscredit of
this poor girl. Certainly they could assume
that whatever he could do in that direction
with his wide influence. his power and his
wide acquaintance, he had done, and it was
before the jury.
He said this plaintiff was born near
Frankfort. KY, the daughter of a saddler
one OF several children; that saddier was
prominent as Mason and Odd Fellow.
The defendant, as he had said himself
knew her father. He said he had learned
at the first interview with the plaintiff
that the father was dead. The father died
in June, 1876, 1t was in proof that he was
man fond of books and learning. Shortly
after the funeral she went away with her
father $ sister to Pittsburg, and remained
there in the family of her aunt, Mrs. Cow
an, until 1880. then she returned to Ken
lucky, and after spending three weeks or
a month with her aunt, Mrs. Stout, near
Frankfort, she went to her aunt, Mrs
heene, and there remained until 1888 In
1883 she went to the Notre Dame Convent
near Cincinnati and in November, 1881.
went to the Wesleyan College. remaining
there until April, 1884, when she went
home to attend the bedside Of dying sis
ter, and remained there until June. 1884,
when she returned to Wesleyan College
Then, in the summer of 1854, she went
to Lexington, where she resided in the
house of Miss Hoyt and Miss ketchum, UNI
til 1887. when she came to Washington.
Leaving out the interval until after the
B frfh Of nt,t LNA~x- -
surroundings here were those of the high
est responsibility.
Attacks on Her Character.
He would leave for future consideration
the particular communication the defen-
dant said the plaintiff made to him, re-
specting Mr.. Rodes but he would go over
here the attacks made on the plaintiff S
character. There was no attack made
upon her conduct until the period testified
to by Mrs. Miller, alias Shindiebauer. This
woman was brought by the agents of the
defense to Lexington to give her testi-
mony She testified that the conduct of the
plaintiff was precoctously improper and dis
graceful.
Molhe Shndlebauer fixed the time and
place. She fixed the time as 1877 and 1878
and the place as at OF near Frankfort.
The account the woman gives of herself
was such that he could without much
fear, contend on her own testimony that
she was not worthy of belief. He did not.
however, need to do that, as they had
proved by credible witnesses that at that
period the plaintiff was not in the state of
Kentucky. but was in the state of Penn
sylvania.
The next attack referred 10 the year 1883
1t was made by John Brand and Hiram
Kaufman. MIR. Carlisle thought il would
be pretty safe to leave these witnesses to
be judged by the jury, as they had char
acterized themselves. They claimed TO have
known and seen the plaintiff in the year
I In no DIR of TiTerf ton In, fIn
reputable house of one Lena Singleton. The
woman Singleton was not described as a
mere casual visitor in the house on North
Upper street, where they located her. but
said she was living in cottage there. The
jury would remember that the testimony of
the son and nephew of Mrs. keene, VINO
lived five miles outside of Lexington, and
with whom the plaintiff then lived con-
firmed her own statements and showed the
probabilities were against the testimony of
Brand and Kaufman as TO the dsreputable
life they said the plaintiff was then leading.
They did not, however, rely upon that en-
tirely. They had the testimony of two men
who had lived in the neighborhood, who
testified that no such woman Lena Sim
gleton had kept house there in that neigh
borhOOd. MIR. Benkert had told them that
the cottage described was not built till 1883
Brands description of his buggy ride with
the plaintiff was denied by the plaintiff and
by all the probabilities shown by the testi-
mony. He thought these two witnesses
had painted themselves in such colors as to
make it impossible to believe them. II it
had been true that the plaintiff had at that
time led such a life they mad described
In the congressional district Of the defend
ant (Breckinridgel, it would have been
proved by such a train of credible wit
nesses appearing before the jury as could
hot leave room for doubt, and not by the
dispositions of two such men as Brand and
kaufman.
Rankin Rozelrs Testimony Analysed.
Referring to what he termed the next at
tack. the testimony of Rankin Rozell, Mr.
Carlisle said he had TO doubt the jury had
as he had, obtained some impression of Mr.
Rozell when he appeared on the stand He
had preserved these tintypes all these years
He mad given a deposition out in Kentucky
and then had come on here. In his direct
examination here he had not said that in
his visits to Wesleyan College he had sat
from an hour to two hours with the plain
tiff on his lap He had said that in his de-
position, and when his attention was called
to 1t in his crOSS-examination he repeated it
here before the jury, saying that he had re-
peatedly sat there with the plaintiff on his
lap, sitting in the open reception rooms of
the college. They had met that with the
testimony of Mrs Brown, the wife of the
president of that college, which showed
that 1t was utterly impossible that Rozelrs
testimony was true
lie claimed that he had visited the plain
TN there three four times a week.
which RrOun CHI