The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-12-17

j himself. but bringing Mrs. Ynrbrough
ana sees his mother staggering about
/ Is that Il lie? Arc wc connecting this
! thing? Is there any reason TO think
IL lie when the law says we shan't
| presume except favorably to tho de-
PENDANT. to think that this was q con-
! spiracy?
That was the first time they had come
together. John and his mother. What
comes next? John goes home. Does
he do an unnatural thing? No. He
sends his wife out to his fathers home
Was that part of tho schomc? There
was no one else for him to get hold
I OF then, ana ho sends his wife out ]
am standing nat-footed on the proof
OF what l did l am prompted by cv-
crythinG that was natural. Johns
wife went there with her child. Is
that a part OF the scheme?
WHO comes next? Miss Alice Rat
cliffc. She told YOU that her family
couldn't get into communication with
her by telephone, that IL message was
sent to her through Mrs. Wingield
When she went to Mrs. WinEncld she
hadn't heard OF the marriage. Did she
do anything unnatural whom she did
hear OF II? She went Immediately to
her mother TO comfort her And what
did she find? What Is the natural con-
dition of the young lady? / think she
is OF nervous type She finds her
mother and sees her sister-in- law there.
There was great excitement there. Was
that conspiracy, or q natural result
of what had happened? Is the daugh-
ter a brute, without feelings? lis she
to take 1t calmly? oh, let us put our
selves III their place! Imagine your
daughter coming homo and not doing
something, not offering some help. Re
member acts must be judged by cir
cumstanccs
Telegram Not False.
Whether IL was an eXtravagant telc-
gram. surely IL was not false In the
sense that they have meant you to
believe 1T. SO far as we can Judge
from the message she sent her brother
of her mothers condition. that young
lady had had no conversation with
any one except her sister-in-law. But
without proof ii is presumed that She
sent false message and entered into
an unlawful conspiracy To destroy tho
marriage relation OF her sister. There
IL where YOU have their view az to
where the conspiracy started But let
Us have some beginning before under
taking to look at the result. She sent
message to her brother Wasn't IL
natural? Wasn't IT from n good mo-
tive? They must prove otherwise.
They must prove IL was not n false
message. not an cxtravagant message.
Then. according TO tho plaintiff, they
tried TO get Frank back
tie his sister and all that rot-,ic u
girl who OF age and walking the
street to her Office. They show YOU
all this humbug, toll you that the
Idea was to get Frank back go that
he could work on his sister. Is that
so? They say that the mother was
not dying. which we admit. Eut she
surely acted as II she We're to Frank
Was the girl lying when she sent q
message to get her brother back, when
she sent exactly the same message to
another brother? Wasn't she doing
what she thought was right? But they
Will provo because tho telegram was
eXtr;vnsant that IT was false. An
other brother got the news. and went
to his employer ana got or so that he
could go home. Does that show con-
spiracy? What was tile object OF get
ting Walter home? he wasn't sup
posed to intimidato his sister. Am /
not right? / don't stand on the pre-
sumption. Haven't l shown YOU that
Miss Alice Ratcliffe's conduct In one
respect was identical with that in ans
other, and if she was innocent in one,
sho was innocent in the other?
will they prove that the idea was
that Frank would be here on Satur-
day. and that they would get the sis
ter and keep her here until Frank got
back?
says She Didn't Love Him.
we say this girl didn't love this
man. My own opinion is that she
stepped into the marriage without con-