New-York tribune., 1913-08-13
POISON PEN MYSTERY
HAS AIRING IN COURT
But Guilt or Innocence OF Mrs.
Nelson L. Pollard Is Still
Undetermined.
CASE MAY BE DISMISSED
Typewriter Salesman Says on
Stand That Defendant Ad-
mitted to Him She
Had a Machine.
tBy Telegraph to The Tribune J

BY Telegraph TO The lriouHr'j
Elizabeth. y. j. Aug l2-The guilt or
innocence Of Mrs Nelson l.. Pollard
charged with writing poison pen" letters
TO Mrs Charles +. Jones, wife OF
dentist; to Or. Charles Schlichter and
other Elizabeth residents, was not de-
termined to-day at the hearing before
Judge owen F. Mahon. The court re-
served decision and continued Mrs. POI
lard's bail $500, which was fixed on the
day OF her first arrest. on May 81. S"e
was arrested again last week by post
office inspectors on the charge Of having
improperly used the mails. The hearing
on this charge is set for Thursday.
The small courtroom was thronseo To-
day with women friends Of both coi"-
plainant and accused. many OF the mem
hers OF Christ Episcopal Church. In whose
work Mrs Pollard is prominent. being III
attendance. Mrs Pollard was heavily
vciled and evaded the camera men Inc
hearing was full OF acrimonious discus
sion between Abe J. David, counsel lot
Mrs Jones. and Samuel Schleimer Mrs'
Pollard's lawyer. but there was nothing
of a sensational nature introduced The
letters used al the Nearing contained
mostly idle gossip.
Mrs. Ernest Jones and Mrs. Thomas
Jones. sisters-in-law OF the complainant
denied having typewriters. They admit
ted they were not on friendly terms with
Mrs. Charles F. Jones for three years. but
made up" after Mrs. Pollard's arrest.
Mrs Thomas Jones denied she tried TO
teach her young daughter TO use type
writer or wished the knowledge that she
had a typewritng machine kept from her
husband These statements were In an
swer TO Mr.. Schleimer's questions, whlch
were along lines tending 20 prove tha0
persons other than Mrs. Pollard wrote
the poison PEN letters.
When his line of questioning was oo-
tected to Mr. Schleimer exclaimed:
have q right 70 show the animus eNsuns
I'm the Jones family. and thus lay the basis
Of proof so that we can place the blame
~ writing the letters where II belongs.
Garret p. Dunham testified TO writing
letter TO n boarder I'm the Pollard home
which II is alleged was later used by the
writer OF the Objectionable notes, VINO
wrote matter on the reverse side or II
with a typewriter When shown this
letter by counsel FOR the defence Dr.
ZONES. husband OF the complainant. said
he did not know who wrote IL. but ad-
vised counsel 10 ask Mr.. Pollard. lie
was then charged with being fresh
and arose from the witness chair IN
threatening attitude. When his temper
cooled ne accused Mrs. Pollard OF writ
ing that and all the other letters.
Mrs. Thomas Jones admitted being IN
the Pollard home during an entertain
mcrt at her sister-in-law's house. next
door. 10 which she was not invited. she
testified she discussed with Mrs. Pollard
at that time some matters OF trivial
nature later referred to in letter re-
ceived by Mrs. Charles Jones.
she said she stated at the time that
n she took n trip to Canada, as her sister
n-law had done. she would not put furs
under her clothing and smuggle them
over the frontier. She had heard. she
declared. that her sister-in-law had
"snuggled" a muff I'm this way. she
said she would swear she had not said
that Mrs. Charles Jones smuggled the
nun. but merely that She had heard her
sister-iu-aw smuggled H.
Mrs. Ernest Jones was vehement IN
her testimony. giving great emphasis 10
her "no. sir" I'm reply 10 a question as
10 whether Mrs. Thomas Jones had told
her she had typewriter and didn't want
her husband TO know she had II. Mrs.
Charles r. Joness testimony was merely
20 the effect that she got a letter wrapped
in a newspaper. She said her brother-in-
law. Or. Horace Bivengood. had No.
Remington machine, which she alleged
Mrs. Pollard had
Frank Hayes. a typewriter salesman
swore that Mrs. Pollard admitted HAVING
a machine. Mrs. Pollard was not put on
the stand. When the hearing was
finished Mr.. Schleimer moved for dis
missal on the ground that his client had
not been connected with either the writ
ing or the mailing OF the poison pen
letters Counsel for the complainant on
the other hand contended his case was
prOVen