Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-03-30

etc. The defendant said there was no such
conversati ton at all. He remained there un-
/ Ill 10 or 1870 o'clock. There was a col
loquy between them when he left as to
whether she would remain there that night
or go TO the house Of a lady friend whom
she had mentioned, and she elected to re-
main at Sarah Guests.
No Talk of Love.
There was no talk of love or Of his help
ing her in her desire to get an education.
There were no protestations Of love what
ever, and nothing beyond carrying out the
arrangement made on the train. He saw
no one else in the house at the time. When
he left 1t was discussed between them as to
whether she should at that time Of night
go to the house Of her friend, and to whom
she had expected to go, or to stay there.
There was a later train, and the sugges-
ton was made by one Of them. he could not
remember which, that she might go and
prete2d that she had come on a later train.
She finally thought II might be better to
stay where she was. 1t was agreed that
defendant would return the next evening,
with some uncertainty as to whether he
should find her or not as she proposed that
II she could leave the house without dis
covery she might do So and drive to her
aunt's or her grandfather's. He found her
there the next evening. She stated she had
been unwilling to take the risk of leaving
the house in broad daylight He did rot
remain SO late the next evening. She said
ing and take the train for Frankfort. She
said she hoped to see her mother in Frank
fort between two trains, returning to Lex
ington on what was known as ne Louis
Vile train, which reached Lexington be-
tween IL and II O'Clock. He did not recall
any conversation about Mr.. Rodes at ALL
She Did Not Claim He Had Seduced
Her.
The plaintiff he said was then an entire
ly developed and grown young woman and
until this suit was filed there had never
been claim by her to him that he had
been her seducer. There had never, he
said. in reponse to a question by Mr.. But
terworth, been a claim that she had
seduced him. There had never, he said,
been any claim by her in any way that he
had seduced or betrayed her. There never
had been, prior to this suit, in any CONVEX
Sdtton with him, any claim on her part in
any conversation that she was at that time
only seventeen years old. He had Endorsed
papers that stated the year of her birth as
1866. which would make her age about
seventeen when he met her, but he had not
paid any attention to these papers at the
time.
At the Sayre Institute.
He had no conversation with her about
going to the Sayre Institute in Lexington
and knew nothing of her going there until
about October l following He saw her
standing at the gate Of the institute with
books in her hand, in company with some
school girls. They walked down the street
together and she told him then she was
boarding at Miss Hoyt's and Mrs. Ketch-
um's and was going to the Sayre Institute.
That was the first knowledge he had of it.
He had not seen her prior to that after
the visit described to Sarah Guests. The
house she mentioned, Miss Hoyts and Mrs
Ketchum's, was one of the highest charac-
ter. They were two women of estimable
character. The defendant denied that he
hPpn a IN har har
He knew plaintiff was away from Lexing-
ton after that. but did not know where
she was Or why she had gone. He could
not recall the exact time when he next saw
her, but il was in the warm weather of
1SS5-he thought in August or September
From the time she left Lexington until
he saw her again in August or September,
1885. he could not recall ever having heard
from her or having received any letter
from her. AS to her statement that she
wrote him under the name of Margaret
Dillon, box Al, Lexington" he said If such
letters were written he never received them
and knew nothing of them. He never had
box Al, and he never knew a Margaret
Dillon.
What He Paid Her.
Returning to the visit to Sarah Guests
Mr.. Butterworth said: There was one
thing 1 forgot to ask you-did YOU pay the
plaintiff anything when you left her after
that visit?"
Il cannot use the word pay" said Mr..
Breckenridge. II paid all the expenses that
were incurred there and provided for her
personal expenses en- her trip"
DO you remember the amount you pre-
scented her within asked Mr.. Butterworth.
Il cannot recollect that" said Mr.. Brock
inridge. II think 1 gave her enough tc
make her Independent on her trjp-to de-
fray all her expenses"
Knowledge of the ROdes Letter De-
MED.
Mr.. Breckenridge then denied having any
knowledge whatever of the letters the
plaintiff claimed to have written with his
aid to Mr.. Rodes and her mother from Gin
cinnati. He had received these letters from
his partner. Mr.. Shelby, who had received
them from Major o. S. Penny, a men,
Der of the Lexington bar, who had OBJ
tanned them from Mrs. Eagle. a sister of
James G.. Rodes. He had never seen them
or known Of their existence until after this
suit was commenced. They were then
placed at his disposal II he needed them.
He denied ever having made any arrange
ment to have Miss Pollard correspond with
him under the name of Margaret Dillon.
Never Saw DIR. Street or DR.. Logan.
He denied ever having seen DR.. Street or
DIR. Logan in Cir Girl att He was elected
to Congress in November. 1884. and he was
after that extremely brsy in arranging his
law business until he came to Washington
in the spring Of 1885 to be present at the
inauguration. He return ed home about the
middle of March A few days afterward
his N other-in-law died, and after that he
was extremely busy in the courts. His i'm
preston was that his next meeting with
tn. plaintiff was in August. Up to that
time he had had no XII owledge of where
she had been or why she had been away
from Lexington. He bad been acquainted
with Mr.. Rodes from his boyhood.
In August and Septem Der, 1885, he found
by public record that he was engaged as
counsel in the notorious case of the COM
monwe alth against Ollie Brown, which be-
came involved in a legal tar gle.
The defendant then described his legal
engagements that kept him at the courts
in Nicholasville, Winchester and elsewhere
In the summer of 1884. He said ne was
not in Cincinnati the 10th or 18th of Au-
gust. He was in court at Winchester ON
Saturday, the 10th, and at his home the
18th. He accounted, in his testimony, for
his time during August, claiming that he
was busily occupied. This was in answer
to testimony about meeting the plaintiff
during August and September at Sarah
Guests. On the evening of the 9Th of Sep
TENDER he left Lexington with members
of his family for Washington. He left
Washington at once, leaving his son, who
was then going to school at Lawrencedale,
and going on to Boston, leaving his daugh-
ter on the way, at Wellesley College Then
he returned with the remainder Of his fam
lily by way of the sea to Norfolk, and re-
turned to Lexington about September 10
or 16.