Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-11-02

Todd's words were calculated TO cause
MIR. Rhcad> 10 discharge the piaintiN.
lie dwclt largely on the words alleged 10
have been uttered by the defendant. AMI
asserted that. II the Jury believed that
she had said he firm shouldn't keep such
% person in thtir employment they
should unquestionabiy find for the plain
tin
MI Montague took the evidence piece
10y piece. and endcavored 10 show that
tho plaintiNs testimony was accurate
ana clear. and that every statement made
hy her was corroboratcd ty other wit
ncsscs
Referring TO the letter Of dismissal the
attorney construed ID rs showing that
The hrm who wrote 10 were governed in
their actions by The fear impressed on
their minds by the defendant that they
would lose q large element of trade. un-
less Miss Cihsons services were dis
peusod with. Disseoting the evidence in
whole Mr.. Montague said the ladies
went 10 the store for the express purpose
OF hearing q statement from Miss Glib
son. yet all OF them. especially Mrs Van
l'ufen. apparently paid more attention
To the statements of Mrs Todd than
they did 20 Miss GibSon's. Mrs. Nan Bu-
Zen not being able 10 recall anything
except Mrs. TOdd's exact words. on which
the cas-" hinged.
Taking the testimony OF Mrs Goldn.
IN reference to her quest for Miss Glib
son. Mr. Montague showed that the
young lady was In the store all the time.
and asserted that II was most peculiar
inst Mrs. GOi1in shouldn't have recOg-
uizcd her until her next visit. when her
attention WIS called 10 nor by Mrs Todd.
WAS THERE JFSTIFICATION?
Of the jury Was there any justification
TOR Mr. Todi's visit ~ the store
and. arguing the point. be- enleavorcd
to show that she should never have gone.
lie thon called thc attention of the
jury To Alrs Told's testimony. and.
after making the assertion that Mrs Told
han hardly been corroaortted iu a single
point ON which she testified. hc under-
took 10 prove thc statement lie cited
several points In the testimony. and. in
explanation of his statement he said
that b. didn't mean 90 assert that Mrs
Todd had wiluliy misrepreseul"d or dis
ioitcd things. bur she was Ike other
ladies Who let their thoughts or impress
sious ran rios with any facts they may
have.
Mr. Montaeue then discussed tho case
with "a view 10 getting tine jury 20 award
punitive damages He said Dee thought
Mr.. Todd should be- pgnished AS she
had Jet her passions get the upper hand
Of her Judgment and wilfuly injured
this poor girl he then asked the lurv
% bring in a verdict for the plaintiff. anf
asserted that hc had shown the jury that
the principal amount Of the testimony for
She defendant was false. he thought his
client Wa clearly entitled to q verdict
Sho hsd been injured ion me eyes of tine
community. and had suffered greatly. 1c
asked that she not only Doe eiyen daln1ras
for her personal loss hat for her wound
% feelings
FOLLOWED BY Mr.. POLLARD
Nr Montague talked about tmrty-uye
minutes ami was followed by Air. a.
Garland poliarl FOR rho defence BE said
fn the outset. know. gentlemen. ttat
the evidence YOU have listened to has
aroused Your sympathy for Miss Gibson.
who has lost her position. for Mrs. Tpld.
VINO has hD.r made 10 appear in tnc
rolr of a wrllltsoue buSy-hody. ana
tor Mrs Hatcher who has bad uint
placed ou her good name which NOT even
death can ohiterafe. he then advised
ihr jury tna' they were not 90 he govern
.j by sympathy. hut Were 20 consider tho
case boz Ct calm. iispas-iouate manner
and bring in 'ueir verdict accordingly.
The Jury must believe that Mics Gibson
wa. uOt The eirl vino had made the r--
mark io Nf~ Pti4ln "hI 'hal MI--
.... ,. 80 l,,.. o,.,,.o,... i..,rsre1 en-. fb.v
awarded th,. uiaiutin Am, damaee- lie
said Nr Montague had attempted to
play uu the synpathics oi the jurs in
behalf 1f the shop-eiris bat the jury
must remember that their wives were
als1 entitled to protection.
Nr Pollard l.ssectei The eVil.uce ln-
troIuceI ly tha plaintiff especially that
part of DO which had been referred to
.t 1lr NDutaLur ant taking up tire
question 81 Identification los Mrs. Guddin.
slid that it was beyond a rcfa!ventur-
that Miss Gibson was the person WI" ht4
made The remarks about Me h@itN"I 'n
Mrs G0'l.n. he thought none oi ne
r.aintn's witnesses had proven thai Mrs.
-r.Jd nl.d. use of the wocds which were
aU.-rI in tie declaration to have been
-t,k.u hv her. ~ one had cllrlhoratel
Miss Gfl-au'- statement that Mrs. ToiI
-.rI she. ought NOT to pe allowed to r.-
main lu Miller ~ Rh0dds's store.
Gentlemen of fle jury Nh Pollard
continued. "th, counsel for the piainon
h.- -uI.aVorcI o. show you t.t' MIS-.
Todd alone is responsible for Miss Cit
-on's Joss ~ position. How preI'~iei'N-.
f .u' thing Wa ia' pieaoHiisdt''s gus.
3D.. ntr discharge. it Wa Mrs. GoIuin
accs-4t.on. and certainly not Airs I0iis
innocent remark"
.-.. ,.,.>-1,p. .,pfsrEp
NltI ~ NJ '''-N nam '''
Air. Pollard tooE exceptions to NJ.
Nuu,aEues statement 'hai Mi-- ''i'''"
testimony was never con l"I.,'"u ln a'.,
essential point. and called ms dilf'''''
,o several very pointed con'fadic''o's.
the principal one being tha' she asserte1
when ou the stand that 10 one Was in
-h. ofi -e save Me>srs "lilie' tnH i'h'i .i''
when Ill, entered. ana NJ. i'"'"-.