The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-06-18

mitted in Evidence by the Defence.
That interest in the trial of Lewis Fran
els Mortimer who IS charged with the
larceny Of $500 worth of diamonds from
Mrs. Olivia .. Starring. is steadily grow
ing was manifested by the increased at
tendance upon the proceedings today.
Among the spectators were number of
women, all OF whom were early arrivals
at the City Hall When the court con
vcned MIS- Starring went on the witness
stand and resumed her testimony.
Andrew A. Lipscomb. who conducted
the cross-eXamination on the part of the
defence, began by asking the witness il
she htd not correspondent with others be
/ sides Mortimer under assumed names.
District Attorney Gould objected to the
| witness being compelled to answer and
was sustained by the court.
The examination then turned again to
the relations between Mrs Starring and
the defendant The witness reiterated
her statement that she did not consider
Mortimer her social equal In contradic-
ton Of this the defence offered letters
written by Mrs Starring to the defend
ant. on March 70 last, in which she
wrote: why did you not arrive for din
neT, my dear friend? / waited till I. and
then went lonely to dinner If you wish
to be my escort to this unique affair at
the Goodwins, this Indian fiesta, you
must wire me your wish. OF I must en-
gage another to take your place, for I
must not risk being out late in that
lonely quarter alone"
This letter bears the headline of the
Hotel Fendome, New York city.
Continuing her testimony, Mrs Starring
stated that she went to the circus with
Mortimer on the evening preceding the
robbery and afterward went to lunch at
the Shoreham. She also stated that she
had Il running eHga cement to go BIZ
cycle riding with Mortimer.
= letter written to Mortimer by Mrs
Starring on December =. 1890. was read
as follows: You see that cook
I had waiting for me turned out
y c, so I had to get on with the services
Of the coiored boy as best l might until I
secured another cook"
He meantime was robbiug me at the
rate Of 80 per diem by having u key made
to my cash drawer. I only discovered
this when I found a diamond solitaire ring
missing" said Mrs. Starring.
Another letter. the contents of which
IS similar to the one above vas offered
by the defence, but on objection by the
irrelevant it was not admitted as evil
dence- In reply to a question by Mr.
Lipscomb, Mrs Starring stated that she
was robbed while stopping at a hotel in
Atlantic City. in 1855. 1T this stage of
the proceedings, Richard p. Evans, of
counsel for the defence, stated to the
court that it was the object of the de
PENDANT to show that Mrs. Starring was
not really robbed He went on to say
that testimony would be offered to show
that Mrs. Starring had a mania for be
ing robbed: that she was prejudiced
against Mortimer, and that the day be
fore the robbery WIS alleged 10 have ia
ken p ace, she had quarrel with the de-
PENDANT, and said to him. I'll fix you"
referring to the prisoner.
When the court TccOuvencd after recess
Mrs. Starring resumed her testimony In
answer to a question by MI Lipscomb
she declined to state the name of the
peTEon from whom she purchased or OBJ
tanned the jewelry in question She. how
ever said that she purchased some Of the
gems in London about ten years ago.
Others. she stated. were presented to her,
but she declined 10 disclose the name Of
the gjyeT-