Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-11-20
MI. olmstead in the Hands of the
~ Lawyers: 80. .. /. 9.
EVIDENCE lor ADMITTED
Old Transactions Call Out Many
Questions.
HIS WIFE, D E A T II

therefore, resumed the stand this morning
in his own behalf
Mr.. Olmstead stated that it was true
that he advised his wife against joining
with her mother and sister in the sale OF
certain parts of the real estate OF her IA
Their, believing that it was not advisable
or desirable. He denied that he had re-
fused to allow his wife's mother and sis
ter to take some remembrance from her eff
fects, saying that he distinctly told Mrs.
Webb that they could take about what
they pleased and for Mrs. Hutchinson, he
had silver cup. used by Mrs. Olmstead,
suitably engraved, but it was never called
Tor. He also offered Mrs. Webb mare
which belonged to her sister, but she did
not take it. Nor did she accept his offer of
an album, containing the photos of his
wife.
Mr.. Olmstead said that Mrs. Hutchinson
and Mrs. Webb We're mistake when they
stated that when they called the day after
mis- Wife's death all arrangements for the
funeral had been completed. Nor did he
remember that Mrs. Hutchinson requested
that her daughter be laid out in certain
lace dress, and that he refused her request.
He said that the statement of Mrs. Webb
that she daily sent her sister meals was
absurd. although she and her mother were
very kind in that way.
Referring to the statement that he had
greatly shocked mis- wife by cooking live
marked that his. reputation as a cook was
too high to do such thing and 1t was not
true. He also said that 1t was not true that
he had referred to Mrs. Webb and her
he denied that he had sworn at the serv
ants. On no occasion had he spoken rough
ly to his wife and caused her to weep.
More Denials.
Speaking Of the statements of Mrs. Webb
ard her mother that he had refused to al
low them to see his wife during her last
illress, Mr.. Olmstead remarked that his
wife had complain ed that they seemed to
think that they were compelled to call
daily, and she also said that they worried
her. He Rad therefore placed the response
bility Of admitting them to the sick cham
Der upon Miss Dauchy, the trained nurse.
Referring to the hanging of the portrait of
his first wife, Mr. Oln:stead denied that his
second wife ehhd ever resented it. Mr..
DIN steau also. referred to the refusal of
Mrs. Webb to allow her little daughter to
ept a Christmas gift from his wife,
saying II at 1t CAUSED Mrs Olmstead much
grief.
Mr.. Olmstead denied that he told one of
the servants that she was too id much
educated to suit him. He also denied hears
Ing Mrs Olmstead complain the evening
she suffered 1.-The CONFUSION that he had
driven so fast that it nearly killed her.
And he denied that it was ever necessary
for her to ask him for small change.
The eveningehis wife suffered the convul-
sion, June 10, 1889, Mr.. Omstead stated
that that afternoon they went driving be-
hind pair, and that twice during the
drive, feeling unusually well, Mrs. Olmstead
took the reips and drove the horses at q
very rapid gait. oLate that evening she suf
fered a severe nconvulsion. Mr.. Olms tead
denied that he insistad upon his wife driv
ing out that evening: against her wishes,
when she was feeJtrtH badly. After that
she never left the house.
Coming making
tested will, Mr.: Olnstcad said that week
or so previous his wife asked him if she
could make a will. He told her yes. but
never suggested that she make one. Later,
at her request. ne called in his attorney
Mr.. VIM. f. Mat:ingly, and Mr.. Matttingly
came the evening it was made and drew it.
AS to the contents Of the will. Mr.. Ohm
stead said he knew nothing, first seeing it
after it had been fled for probate by Mr..
Mattingly. No suggestion as to it's provi-
sions was ever made by him to his wife,
and he had nothing whatever tp do with 1t
beyond what he related on the stand.
Cross-Examinntlon.
That concluded the direct testimony of
Mr.. Olmstead, and Mr.. Perry proceeded to
cross-examine him. He said, in reply to
Mr.. Perry's inquiry. that it was true that
Mrs. Olmstead three or four times drove
off in his buggy unknown to him, and
while it was true that he and Mrs. Ohm
At
terrapin and other delicacies, he could not
state just when those lunches occurred.
He had kept the letters of Mrs. Webb to his
wife for whatever use he might think
proper.
Mr. Perry then got Mr.. Olmstead to re-
late his business affairs. the witness stat
ing that from 1882 to 1890 he was ostensi-
bly, in the real estate business. Since then
he had been engaged in New York princi-
pally in stock speculation. To Mr.. Perry
Mr.. Olmstead stated that it was true that
Curtis ]. Hilyer and Thomas Sunderland
had several years ago filed a bill in equity
against him and others, and then Mr.. Per
ry asked the court to allow him to ask
Mr.. Olmstead as to the charges made
against him contained in the bill of COM
plant.
inquiry would not be responsive 20 the d.
1ect examination of Mr.. Olmstead, and that
it would be irrelevant and immateral.
Replying to Mr.. Davis objection, Mr.
Perry said that one of the things charged
against Mr. Olmstead in the present case
was fraud, and ne insisted that he had the
right to show that the witness had been
engaged in other fraudulent transactions.
And said Mr.; Perry. he also desired to ask
Mr.. Olmstead as to another alleged fraud
u!ent transaction in connection with one
Redding. his purpose Icing to show if pos
sible, the fraudulent disposition of the wit
ness. The equity cause referred to, said
Mr.. Perry. had gone up to the United States
Supreme Court, where the case decided be-
low against Mr.. Olmstead) had been affirm
ed. 1t was conviction, stated Mr. Perry
OF Mr. Olmstead as a fraud doer, and he
contended that he had as much right to
introduce the record of that case in the
present one as if Mr.. Olmstead had been
convicted in 4 CRIMINAL court of perjury or
forgery.
Mr. Davis. however, stoutly contended
that the cases Yidely differed, and that in
no way was the Differ of Mr. Perry justified
by law or practtce
In sustaining Mr.. Davis objection Judge
Bradley rema:ked that under no principle
of evidence cduFd the evidence be admitted.
Mr. Perry notedan exception to the courts
ruling: and 3 recess was taken at 1925
until o'clock. q
Upon the resumption of the trial after re-
cess. Mr. Perry offered to submit in evidence
the bill of complaint filed by Messrs. Hilyer
& Sunderland against Mr. Olmstead and
Others, but the court, on the objection of
Mr.. Davis, oyerruled the offer, Mr. Perry
noting an exception. Mr.. Perry then offered
to prove that, fnsthe equity case referred to-,
witnesses were called and examined on both
sides, when ,Mrt, Wilson objected, contend
ing that, having offer ed to submit the whole
record in the case, and the court having
excluded it, that was enough.
Judge Bradley sustained the objection,
and also remarked that his ruling was
broad enough to cover. and did cover. any