The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-12-13
RADCLIFFE SUIT
WILL NOT REACH
JURY THIS WEEK
Continued from First Page


Mrs. walker was recalled to tile stand
by Mr. Meredith 10 correct :, statement
she had made on cross-examination by
Mr. WcndcnburS on the day before
She had stated to him that she was
positive that hor mother and John
Ratclino had visited her I'm PITTSBURGH
before Grant Walker had come to see
her.
y was positive Yesterday she said.
walker did. but don't think so now
In ract. I'm sure il was after MIR
Walker visited mo that they came"
shows Post-Onlcc Records.
w. X southwark assistant post
master. was placed on the stand by
Mr.. WondenburS in rebuttal Of Mrs
Walkers statement that she did not
remember receiving two special de-
livery letters on juno 10 or June lG 1t
was stated by Mr.. NcndcnburC that
TIE post Office regulations require that
an employee must 10 requested by tho
court to testify. and Judge Crump de-
nvered the request
Look I'm your records ana see" said
Mr. Wcndenburg. whether any spc-
cia1 delivery letters were sent to Miss
Bctty Ratclifro In Pittsburgh from
Richmond on June IL"
The book for Juno Il shows" re
piled the witness that two special de-
livery letters FOR Miss Betty RatcliMc
were mailed In this post Office at =
o'clock J.. NJ on June Il. and they were
mailed on tho $40 train" Tie said
that ne couldn't tell whether they had
been received, but that other records
would show whcthcr they had been re-
ce!ved by Mrs Walker.
Juno Ii. 1913. was on Saturday. and
Mr.. Wendenburg asked whether spc-
cini delivery letters were delivered on
sunday. Mr.. Southwark said that they
were delivered immediately.
Gail Typewriter Experts.
Two OF the mechanical experts OF the
Remington Typewriter Company were
placed on the stand by Mr. Meredith to
testify az to the similarity OF alleged
defects found in business lottcr writ
ten by John Eatclffc and Il letter mail
ed by Mrs. Walker 10 her husband the
plaintifs having alleged that John
Ratcliffc wrote both.
Paul Culpeper, head OF the mechan-
ical department. OF the typewriter com
pnny, said that the dcicct pointed out
could havo occurred in any machine
that IL resulted from improper shifting
or striking Il letter too hard. The dc.
rect was diagonal mark which APP
peared above the period In the letter
1t occurred in both letters. but was
more frequent in the Pittsburgh letter
than the other. The witness said that
ii could result from the method OF ope-
ration of tho typewriter, and that it
would not necessarily mean that tho
machine was defective.
Mir Wcndenbuig pointed out the let
tor ~" in both letters. alleging that
IT was defective in both. MIR. Culpeper
was unable TO see the defect. and tho
letters were passed again to the jury.
Il J.. Day, Of the same company.
testified along the same lines. but said
that he could SEQ that tho letter ~"
appeared 10 he defective In both.
Tells Who Dictated 1t.
1t is claimed 10y the plaintiffs that
John RAtcllhc wrote tho letter In
which Mrs Walker stated to her nus
band that she had not been Influenced
EN any OF her relatives against her
husband and sent it to her by special
delivery TO be romuiled TO Walker.
Mrs. Walker stated on the witness
stand that sho wrote tn, letter at Tho
dlctation Of &. 3. PritohArd. formerly
assistant district attorney Of Fits
bureh, who was called in by Mrs
Wadsworth, with whom she was STAY
ing
1t had been decided 20 put IN Ell
fence tho Typewriter belonging to
MIS- Wadsworth, on which Mrs. Walker
declared Sho wrote the letter ana The
machine belonging To John Ratcliftc
on which the plaintiffs alIcec that
the letter was written bu, thov were
not received ia time, and MIR Meredith
announced that the defendants rested
ne jury was adjourned at ll.lh
Siock' and argument ON the instflic-
lions began half an lollr lai,,