The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-03-14
UNIQUE BEAUPRE TRIAL
A STREET-RAILyvAY DAMAGE CASE
FULL OF INCIDENTS.
Fourth Trial of the suit-One Witness
Who Has Sworn Several ways
Several Times.

Information from Greenfield would lnOl-
cate that the trial of Mrs Macy Beaupre's
damage suit against the Citizens Street
railroad Company, now going on there, is
presenting some very curious phases, not
to say ludicrous situations. Mrs. Beaupre
is claiming damages from the company in
the sum Of $4,000 She was injured in this
city June 10. 1896, while alighting from
car. 1t is claimed the car started while she
was in the act OF stepping off, and that she
was thrown down and dragged along the
street. The contention of the company is
that the plaintiff started to alight before
the car stopped and did step off despite the
protests of the conductor and several pas
sengers who stood on the platform.
The case is now being tried for the fourth
time. It went to Hendricks county on
change of venue and was three times tried
at Danville. On the first trial the jury was
unable to reach a verdict. The second trial
resulted in a verdict of $3.50 for the
plaintiff. The court set this verdict aside
and granted the street car company new
trial. In the third trial Mrs. Beaupre was
again victorious, receiving verdict for $15-
co., which the court again set aside. BY
agreement the case was taken to Green
field. Mrs. Beaupre is represented by At
torneys W. j. Beckett and A c. Ayres. One
of the queer complications of the case is
seen in the conduct of one Clarence Chas-
teen, a resident Of Mount Jackson. This
witness, it seems, has been the cause of
great deal of confusion in the litigation.
During the third trial of the case he was
witness for the plaintiff and told how he
had seen the accident and how the COM
pany was responsible for Mrs. Beaupre's
injuries. Afterward Chasteen made an affi-
davit to George Bruce of the street car
company, stating that his testimony was
false-that he had been bought up by
friends of the plaintiff. He claimed he was
to receive 500 if Mrs. Beaupre was success
full. He said this contract was ratified in
Attorney Beckett's office. Later he made
another affidavit in which he asserted that
his statement to Bruce was incorrect, and
that his testimony at Danville was true. In
this last affidavit Chasteen claimed he was
drunk when he made his statement to
wards This affidavit, he said, was made
last summer on the night of the Barnum d
Bailey circus. Last week Chasteen was put
on the stand at Greenfield and repeated the
testimony he gave at Danville.
THE PLAINTIFFS TAINTED.
The case was thrown into confusion few
days ago when Mrs. Beaupre had a sWoon-
ing attack in the courtroom. She fell in
faint while the case was in progress and in
full view Of the jury. Attorney Ferdinand
Winter, counsel for the street-railroad COM
pany, Immediately jumped up, it is said, and
objected to Mrs. Beaupres conduct. He de-
clared that such performance should
not be permitted, and he moved that the
Jury at once be discharged and a new one
impaneled. The court mildly demonstrated
with Mr.. Winter and remarked that If the
plaintiff gave way to a swooning spell he
did not see how he could prevent 1t. The
case proceeded without change of jurors.
Among the witnesses in the case are the
members of family of the name of Wood
gate, who live in the State of Georgia Mr..
Woodgate is a brother of Mrs. Beaupre.
He is witness for her, while his wife and
children have come out for the street car
company. The Woodgates were staying with
Mrs. Beaupre at the time of the accident.
The attorneys for the Street-rallroad com
pany have attempted to show that Mrs.
Beaupre was, not dangerously injured. ana
that she took long bicycle rides after the
accident. Last week one witness was called
who knew Mrs. Beaupre. Did she ever
take any recreation?" inquired an attorney
of the witness. The man appeared to think
deeply for moment.
Il can't say that ever saw her take any
thing" he at length replied.
One day last week the attorneys were
somewhat diverted by the threats OF the
husband of Mrs. M cAlister. one OF the Wit
n6SS6S In the Case TO
to Attorney Beckett. Mrs. McAlister is a
witness for the defendant. She testified that
one day after the accident Mrs. Beaupre IN
vited her to take a carriage ride. While
out they stopped in front of a downtown
dry goods house and Mrs. McAlister
anghted and entered the store to make
purchase When she came out there was
man standing at the carriage taking TO
Mrs Beaupre. He seemed to be irritated
and was consuming Mrs. Beaupre for being
out Mrs. McAlister heard him say: III
you'll stay in the house and do your part
i'll do mine, and we can get that money:
Mrs McAlister on the witness stand said
she believed this man to be Attorney
Beckett. The attorney subjected the Wit
ness to a rather sharp cross-examlnaIlon,
AMI it was his manner of inqu, y on this
occasion that aroused the Ire OF flrs. NC
Alister's husband.
a'Ill attend to his case after court ad-
iourns" observed McAlister as his wife was
leaving the stand. AT the adjournment 1t
looked as If McAliSter intended Keeping his
word but the attorneys managed TO Keep
the men separated. A witness in the case
named George Lozier has furnished the
court and attorneys considerable amuse-
ment. He testified the other day that he
lived down near the river bank 1t appears
that the furnishings of his house are rather
on the unique order and particularly the
style of his bed. He was asked by an at
torney when he had last slept IN a regular
bed, He replied that he enjoyed the luxury
of bed few nights before in the hotel at
"But before that how long had 1t been
since you slept in a regular bed?" asked the
lawyer. ,,a ~.
witness.