Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-03-27
DAY OF DISPOSITIONS.
The Pollard Case Comparatively Un-
interesting.
SMALLEST CROWD YET.
The Sensation Seekers Mt Washington Ad-
Iourn TO Pastures Ncw-A Breck-
inridge Alibi.


inridge Alibi.
WASHINGTON. March 2s.-The trial
| of Miss Pollard's suit against Representa-
tive Breckinridge was resumed this
morning after a recess, so far as the
fury and the public are concerned, since
last Thursday. The Judge and the lawyers
had a session last Saturday in private,
when the question of the admlssibility
Of certain deposItions offered by the de-
fendant was argued. Miss Pollard was
not present to-day. There was the usual
crowd Of spectators. but the number dwin-
died down during the morning, as the pro-
ceedines, while OF a character which tn.
defence REGARDED as important TO thar
| side of the case, were prosy and unin-
teresting Judge Bradley during the
morning announced that II h could do
| so he would exclude some OF the deposit
,io,s he had examined because OF their
| uncleanness.
He suggested to the representatives of
nowspapers present that when they are
| OF the community and the families into
which their papers go, withhold the de-
| tails of this testimony from publication.
| The depositions in question are number
which are TO be read attacking the repu-
tation Of the plaintiff. 1t was thought to-
| day that the defendant would go-on the
stand tomorrow or Wednesday. The de-
positions read this morning-some OF
which were tediously long-were submit
| tel for the purpose OF showing that at
certain times I'm the spring and summer
| of 1884 Mr. Breckenridge was busily en-
| gagged in trying law suits at Versailles.
| winchester. and Nicholasville, KY. There
was testimony. also as 10 his whereabouts
at other times This testimony, it is un-
| derstood. is TO be pieced togSt in argu-
ment. and compared with ,.c plaintiffs
| story. In other words. the testimony IS
offered to prove an alibi for MA Breckin-
ridge. 80 far as some accusations made
| AGAINST him by the plaintiff are con-
cerned.
JUDGE BRADLEY'S DECISION.
wben the court was called TO order
Judge Bradley at once referred TO the
| objections TO depositions argued on Sat
urdav. one objection. he said, went TO
the right Of the defendant to take any
depositions de bene esse. under the act
| OF Congress in force In the District.
| That objection was based on the language
Of section S3, Revised Statutes Of the
! h.. ftfIf lar
act Of l7S9. That language appears TO limit
the right to take such depositlons to par
ties to civil causes pending in Circuit and
District Courts Of the United States. The
Judiciary act of 17S9 confers that
right in different AMI broader Ian
guage. II gives the right TO
any party in n civil cause pending in any
district in any court OF the United States.
The provisions OF that act remained un-
changed uD 10 the time OF the completion
Of the revision Of the United States sta
tutes. 1t cannot be disputed that this
court and It's predecessor. the old Circuit
Court OF the District o5 Columbia, was =
court Of the United States. II was claimed,
however. that inasmuch by n provision
for repeai embraced in the United States,
that where any portion Of an act Of Con-
gress is embraced in the revision. such
portion Of the act as was not 50 embraced
was repealed. and in this case the power
or authority conferred in the
statute in question was confined
to Circuit and District Courts. The
fact. however. that this power
| had been exercised by this court he would
feel ii incumbent upon him to maintain
that right until the question was deter
mined by a court OF higher authority.
However. It was his opinion that the ne
ccssary authority existed. There We're
two grounds for this belief OF the court.
The repeal Of the judicial act, he be-
| Uryed would not deprive this court Of
the authority it and the old Circuit
Court of the District had exercised. In
| Kendall against the United States. 1t
was distinctly held by the United States
Supreme Court that the power OF the Cir
cult Court OF the District of Columbia 10
issue writs of mandamUs was derived
from the acts Of Congress comforting such
power and also from The old laws OF Mary
land. .
OBJECTIONS ONERRCLED.
The Court was Of the opinion that If the
mower existed in this court prior to the
! revision of the statutes. IL was not affected
bv that revision. independently OF that
the fact that the power and jurisdiction OF
a circuit court OF the United States were
expressly conferred upon 'his court, the
power of such courts 10 have depOsi;ions
taken de bcne csse existed In tiis court
Tn. right OF individuals 10 take such de-
rcsitions was a right subject To his own
will. They were beyond and outside Of the
control Of the court. but when the right TO
read them I'm evidence was claimed, then
~ becarnc a question Of the right Of the
3 81. Ia. mi nor
10 b. read. Now all such power and juris-
diction were expressly conferred upon his
court. and under such delegation of power
II seemed the Court had not only the
uoyer. but il was the duty of the Court
To permit the depositions to b. read, II
thev were otherwise unobjectiOnable
Therefore. the Court oyerruled the obJec-
! tior.s touching the power OF the Court 10
hear them.
BRANDS DEPOSITION. d,
The Court then reviewed briefly obiec-
tions made TO deposition Of one Rrand.
because he had refused To answer certain
Questions In cross-eXaminati0n. The de-
! nonent had been asked where he ;'fs: met
a certain woman, who, he said, nal miro
duced him to plaintiff He had declined 10
answer, on the ground that the woman
was married and he did not care To eX-
nose her. The commissioner had told him
he need not give the name. This, the
! Court said. was construed by plaintiff S
counsel as a direction that he should not
answer the question. Subsequently. how
ever, the witness was asked the name,
and said he did not know It, 1r had for
gotten IL. This, the Court thought. showed
! The question was answered, or that me de-
nonent was clearly lying. lie did not
| think the objection held. In another place
| the witness had testified TO riding with
the nlaintin. and had been asked as 10
whether he had improper relations with
| her and declined 10 answer. The COM
missioner stated he did not think the Wit
| ness could be forced TO answer u. The
| Court could not conceive what objection
| the deponent. who was married nan,
| had to answering the question, az his
course OF life showed him TO be utterly
| indifferent morally. The Court did not
| think the objections made were sufficient
10 exclude the deposition.
Judge Bradley considered similar OBJ
tections made 10 other deposi:ions, and
| overIyled them. He said the weight OF
| the deposltions as evidence was question
| for the jury
DISPOSITIONS EXCLUDED.
The deposition OF John O'Toole. the
Court said, was objected to as hearsay.
| so far as il related TO material matters.
| the court overruled as a whole. but said
excluded the deposition. The court ex-
| cluded for the same reasons the depo-
a