Evening Star Newspaper, March 30, 1894, Page 2

2 THE EVENING STAR, FRIDAY, MARCH 30, 1894-TWELVE PAGES. on Mr. Breckinridge’s testimony and pass the little slips of paper to her lawyers for their future guidance. Mr. Breckinridge’s testimony is in many | ways remarkable. In his story today he has contradicted almost every statement the plaintiff has made, whether they were mportant and significant or of the most character. There is no possible way of harmonizing two such opposite accounts of the same incidents. One is true and the other fs not, or else both are false. It is not within the range of possibilities that both can be true. “None whatever.” This was Mr. Breckinridge’s favorite an- swer to questions propounded to him by Mar. Butterworth. The lawyer would ask the witness whether there was any truth in one after! mother of the statements made by the plaintiff. “None whatever,” was Mr. Brack: | inridge’s reply, given in an earnest way, with a curious sort of rising inflection in his voice. | Miss Pollard, when she was telling of | promises made to her by Mr. Breckinridge, | talked in a most dramatic manner. Mr. Breckinridge’s denial made today was no less theatrical. In a most sweeping manner he denied that | he had ever at any time or place, in any way, in fact or by inference, given Miss Pollard to understand that he had the “glightest intention of ever making her his wife. His voice was rot at all firm as he spoke the words. He seemed to pause after | each word, as if seeking in his mind for| the phrase that would make his denial as Pronounced as possible. Mr. Breckinridge was not the smooth and graceful speaker | today that he usually is. He was clearly | embarrassed, far more so than was Miss Pollard when she was on the stand. Mr. Breckinridge was not requested to take a chair when he ascended the witness box. All day long he stood there between the judge and the jury, facing the lawyers and the plaintiff. His right hand rested | Most of the time on the table in front of | him. His left arm rested on Judge Brad- ley’s desk. The hand, with its bandaged index finger, was busy all the time. It was actively fingering a spectacle case or nerv- ously running through his snow-white hair. | It was a trying position for a man who h: been accustomed to holding audiences spell- bound with his eloquence. Mr. Breckinridge looks full ten years older than he did a month ago. His de- bonnair manner is all gone, either for the Present only or for all time. This, of course, remains to be seen, and for the future to disclose. Today he needed no lawyer to lead him alcrg with his story. He talked straight head, and when Mr. Butterworth, for any Teason, wanted to ply him with a question \t was necessary for him to interrupt the thread of Mr. Breckinridge’s story. If Mr. fe had been delivering a lec- ture two hours and a half long he could Mot have done it with more verbosity. But he was nervous all the time. Mr. Butter- ‘werth did not get in a question more than nce in ten minutes. Mr. Breckinridge Resumes His Story. When Judge Bradley's court met this morning the defendant, Mr. Breckinridge, resumed the stand and his direct exam- fmation was continued by Mr. Butter- ‘worth. In response to the questions of }is counsel Mr. Breckinridge went on with agi of his relaticns with the Mr. Butterworth first harded the wit- mess the work basket which has figured in the case and which Miss Pollard said he — her. Mr. Breckinridge said the basket one brought to his wife from Nan- tucket by Miss Desha in the summer of or 1890. His wife died in July, 1892. en his children determined to give up eeping in Washington and go to ‘ington he had some furniture left here to use in two rooms for himself and in some way that basket was amcng the things sent to his rooms, on H street. He did not recollect when he had last seen it. Did Not Give the Work Basket. He deried that he had presented it to Miss Pollard, as she had described in her testimony. He did not give her the basket and did not know she had it. He did mot go to her house in a herdic on the oc- casion when he left Washington. He had left Washington at 11 o'clock at night and his son was with him. He learned a day or two before the trial that a basket was in her possession, but he did not know what the basket was until this _w: Produced in the trial. The name of “Issa’ used by the plaintiff in her testimony was mot a contraction, but was his deceased wife's baptismal name. He did not know how the plaintiff got possession of the bas- ket. She had been several times at his fooms, but he had no direct knowledge as to how she got it. He could only say it was without his knowledge or connivance. Mr. Butterworth then took up the testi- mony where it ended last evening. The Meeting at Sarah Guest's. Mr. Breckinridge said that on the 2d of August, 1884, when he left Cincinnati for Lexir gton he found plaintiff in the car he entered. The car was crowded. They had g@ome little conversetion, which resulted in| @n arrangement to meet that evening in The on. arrangen-ent was that They skould meet at the house of a colored ‘Woman ramed Sarah Guest. The conversa- tion reached the point where they were to Meet somewhere. Witress had asked if there was any place in Lexington where she would trust herself. She thereupon suggested the house of Sarah Guest. He asked her how she come to know of Sarah Guest’s house. She said Mr. Rodes had on one occasion prior endeavored to take her there. and she had gone as far as the gate, bu: no further. He described their going from the railroad stution to Sarah Guest's house. The account given by plaintiff in the New York World, he said, as to what first occurred there was substantially cor- Fect. They knocked at the door, but there was no response, and they waited there gome time. It was finally decided that Plaintiff should wait while he went to his me, intending to return soon. If Sarah Guest returned meanwhile he would meet her there; if not she would communicate ‘With him next day. Had Supper With His Family. The plaintiff went home and had supper with his family. There was a torchlight Procession in progress. He went to the steps of the bank building, where he Watched the procession a short time. There Was a halt and some attempt to have him make a speech, but he did not want to make a speech. Then he went to Sarah Guest's house, and found the plaintiff there and Sarah Guest. He thought he had been absent from her about an hour. He had not, he said, seen Sarah Guest the evening before or made any prior arrangement with ie, Mr. Butterworth called attention to the Plaintiff's account of the conversation there, in which she jbeen her seducer. There had never, | seduced him. etc. The defendant said there was no such conversation at all. He remained there un- til 10 or 10:30 o'clock. There was a col- | loquy between them when he left as to whether she would remain there that night or go to the house of a lady friend whom she had mentioned, and she elected to re- main at Sarah Guest's. No Talk of Love. There was no talk of love or of his help- ing her in her desire to get an education. There were no protestations of love what- ever, and nothing beyond carrying out the arrangement made on the train. He saw no one else in the house at the time. When he left it was discussed between them as to whether she should at that time of night go to the house of her friend, and to whom she had expected to go, or to stay there. There was a later train, and the sugges- tion was made by one of them, he could not remember which, that she might go and pretegd that she had come on a later train. She finally thought it might be better to stay where she was. It was agreed that defendant would return the next evening, with some uncertainty as to whether he | if she could leave the house without di covery she might do so, and drive to her aunt's or her grandfather's. He found her there the next evening. She stated she had been unwilling to take the risk of leaving the house in broad daylight. remain so late the next evening. She said that she would get up early the next morn- ing and take the train for Frankfort. She said she hoped to see her mother in Frank- fort between two trains, returning to Lex- ington on what was known as ‘ne Louis- ville train, which reached Lexiagton be- tween il and 12 o'clock. He did not recall eny conversation about Mr. Rodes at all. She Did Not Claim He Had Seduced Her. ‘The plaintiff, he said, was then an entire- ly developed and grown young woman, and until this suit was filed there had never been a claim by her to him that he had he said, in reponse to a question by Mr. But- terworth, been a claim that she had There had never, he said, been any claim by her in any way that he had seduced or betrayed her. There never had been, prior to this suit, in any conver- sation with him, any claim on her part in any conversation that she was at that time only seventeen years old. He had indorsed papers that stated the year of her birth as 1868, which would make her age about seventeen when he met her, but he had not paid any attention to these papers at the time. the Sayre Institute. He had no conversation with her about going to the Sayre Institute, in Lexington, and knew nothing of her going there until about October 1 following. He saw her standing at the gate of the institute with books in her hand, in company with some school girls. They walked down the street together, and she told him then she was boarding at Miss Hoyt’s and Mrs. Ketch- um’s and was going to the Sayre Institute. That was the first knowledge he had of it. He had not seen her prior to that after the visit described to Sarah Guest's. The house she mentioned, Miss Hoyt’s and Mrs. Ketchum’s, was one of the highest charac- ter. They were two women of estimable character. The defendant denied that he had been a constant visitor to her there. He knew plaintiff was away from Lexing- ton after that, but did not know where she was ®r why she had gone. He could not recall the exact time when he next saw her, but it was in the warm weather of 1885—he thought in August or September. From the time she left Lexington until he saw her again in August or September, 1885, he could not recall ever having heard | from her or having received any letter from her. As to her statement that she wrote him under the name of “Margaret Dillon, box 47, Lexington,” he said if such letters were written he never received them and knew nothing of them. He never had box 47, and he never knew a Margaret Dillon. What He Paid Her. Returning to the visit to Sarah Guest’s Mr. Butterworth said: “There was one thing I forgot to ask you—did you pay the plaintif? anything when you left her after that visit?” “I cannot use the word pay,” said Mr. Breckinridge. “I paid all the expenses that were incurred there and I provided for her personal expenses cn her trip.” “Do you remember the amount you pre- sented her with?” asked Mr. Butterworth. “T cannot recollect that,” said Mr. Breck- inridge. “I think I gave her enough tc make her independent on her trip—to de- fray all her experses.” Knowledge of the Rodes Letter De- nied. Mr. Breckinridge then denied having any knowledge whatever of the letters the Plaintiff claimed to have written with his aid to Mr. Rodes and her mother from Cin- cinnati. them from Major O. S. Penny, a mem- ber of the Lexington bar, who had ob- tained them from Mrs. Eagle, a sister of James C. Rodes. He had never seen them or known of their existence until after this suit was commenced. They were then placed at his disposal if he needed them. | He denied ever having made any arrange- ment to have Miss Pollard correspond with him under the name of Margaret Dillon. Never Saw Dr. Street or Dr. Logan. He denied ever kaving seen Dr. Street or Dr. Logan in Circirrati. He was elected to Congress-in Novemter, 1884, and he was after that extremely brey in arranging his law business until he come to Washington in the spring of 1885 to be present at the inaugvration. He returted hcme about the middle of March. A few days afterward his mother-in-law died, and after that he wa3 extremely busy in the courts. His im- pression was that his next meeting with the plaintiff was in August. Up to that time he had had no knowledge of where she had been or why she had been away from Lexington. He had been acquainted with Mr. Rodes from his boyhood. In Avgust and September, 1885, he found by public record that he was engaged as counsel in the notcricus case of the com- morwealth against Ollie Brewn, which be- came involved in a legal targle. The defendant then described his legal engagements that kept him at the courts in Nicholasville, Winchester and elsewhere in the summer of 1884. He said he was not in Cincinnati the 16th or 17th of Au- gust. He was in court at Winchester on Saturday, the 16th, and at his home the 17th. He accounted, in his testimony, for his time during August, claiming that he was busily occupied. This was In answer to testimony about meeting the plaintiff during August and September at Sarah Guest's. On the evening of the 6th of Sep- tember he left Lexington with members of his family for Washington. He Washington at once, leaving his son, who was then going to school at Lawrencedale, and going on to Boston, leaving his daugh- | ter, on the way, at Wellesley College. Then he returned with the remainder cf his fam- | fly by way of the sea to Norfolk, and re- turned to Lexington about September 15. or 16. At Miss Rose's in October. The defendant said after his visit with plaintiff his next improper meeting with her was at a house in Cincinnati in the lat- ter part of October. He remembered the date, because there was a republican meet- ing, at which John A. Logan was the chief attraction. He met her at the Grand Central station. They went to the house of Mrs. Rose. He left her there while he went out to trans- act some business. She remained there until he returned. They were there several hours. He went from there to his hotel and then went to Lexington. They did not return together. She was undecided when he left her whether she would go to her mother or go back to Lexington. He un- derstood from her afterward that she had gone to Frankfort and then to Lexington. “Did you,” asked Mr. Butterworth, “pay her anything on that occasion?” “Whatever her expenses were.” said Mr. | Breckinridge, “‘of course I paid them.” Mr. Breckinridge having said he did not attend the republican meeting, Mr. Butter- worth remarked: “You did not have that advantage.” Mr. Breckinridge said this was the first time he ever visited Mrs. Rose’s house with plaintiff, ard the first improper meeting he had with her after seeing her at the gate of the Sayre Institute. Tne defendant then went on, describing his movements during the autumn, his court engagements, &c. He came to Washington, he said, about the 20th of February following. His Movements in the 1884-85. The defendant saw the plaintiff during the months of November, December and January at the house he had named and on the street, but he could not recall exactly the last occasion. He was in Washington until the 16th or 18th of March. He was here during the inauguration of Mr. Cleve- land. There were some gentlemen from his district who were willing to serve their country, and he introduced them to the President. Thea, learning of his mother- in-law’s serious condition, he hastened back Winter of said she gave him her life, |home. i He had no knowledge at that time that ‘the plaintiff claimed to be pregnant. The ) first time he knew of such a claim on her part was in the summer of 1887. It was | the first time he had had from her or any ‘one any intimation of such a character. The first time he had had any intimation that such a state had carried her to Cin- ;cinnati in 1885 was in the winter of 1892- % when she asked him to help obtain | @ position for a lady here, whose brother {she said had been her physician in Cincin- nati when she was in trouble. In the sum- mer of 1887 she claimed that he was the cause of her condition. She did not then pa; gay she had been in Cincinnati, but she of | Parson's charges were exorbitant, to the extent of blackmail. The defendant, how- ever, was satisfied when he saw Mrs. Par- sens that she was acting perfectly prop- er. He did not, however, know until Mrs. Parscns testified that a living child had |been born. Miss Pollard had not up to that » time applied for a government appoiiitmeni. | She went after this to the Academy of Vis- itation, as the defendant called it, on Mass- | achusetts avenue. The arrangement was | that she was to teach and to receive her- | Self instruction in some higher studies. The defendant thought this was a good ar- ngement, as she would have the benefit the protection of the sisters. She re- He did rot | He had received these letters from | his partner, Mr. Shelby, who had received | left | then for the first time claimed that he had been the cause of her trouble at some pre- vious time. Her information to him was that it had been a legitimate miscarriage. She indicated that this had occurred with the knowledge of her mother and under her mother’s care; that it was through her mother that she had been prevented from suffering loss of character or any pub- Melty. Did Not See Plaintiff in 1886. After returning from Washington the de- fendant said he thought he next saw plain- tiff in August. She was then living at Miss Hoyt’s. He was very actively engaged in his profession that fall. He saw the plain- tiff occasionally, but not often. to Washington the Ist of December to be- gin his congressionad duties. He did not |sust 5. He left here, with his wife, the next day for Old Point, and remained there until the 15th of August. He had helped bring in what was known as the Morrison bill, which put hemp on the free list, and, as his district was the largest hemp gro' ing district in the country, his friends an- ticipated he would have a hot fight. They had arranged a barbecue for the 17th, and he went home to be present. He did not see the plaintiff at all after he left Lexing- , ton for Washington, and he could not recall having seen her during the recess of Con- ress in 1886. He was engaged actively in | political and legal work. He could not recall having seen the plain- tiff at all during the whole year of 1886. He left Lexington for Washington a day or | two before the beginning of the short ses- sior. His recollection was that the plaint came to Washington in the fall of 1887. Defendant thought he went to Lexington to try a case during the Christmas holidays | of 1886. He thought it was the case of a | suit against the Kentucky Central Ratlroad Company by a man named Nichols. He did not meet the plaintiff during that visit. When the short session of the Forty-ninth Congress closed, in March, 1887, defendant returned to Lexington. Congress adjourned Friday and he left Monday. He left twenty- four hours earlier than he intended because of the death of Mrs. Senator Beck, the Sen- ator having asked him to make the funeral arrangements. He Took 2 Room at Miss Hoyt’s During all that time up to the adjourn- ment of Congress he had had no corres- Ppondence whatever with the plaintiff. When he returned to Lexington he had some law business to attend to. He took a room at Miss Hoyt's where plaintiff had a room. That was about March 15. The defendant was alone in Lexington and had business to attend to, and the noises at the hotel dis- turbed him. He was, in addition to his law business, preparing an article. A friend suggested to him that there was a vacant room at Miss Hoyt'’s, and as it was con- venient to his office, he went there and en- gaged it. His family was not in Lexington and he had no furnished house there. He may have known that the plaintiff was at the house at the time. He had no recollec- tion whatever of having furnished the plain- tiff any books up to that time, but he may have done so. After the spring of 1887 he probably did supply her with books. His mail used to come there to the house and he used to loan them to Miss Hoyt and the others in the house and to Miss Pollard. No Improper Relations at Miss Hoy While they were at Miss Hoyt’s there were no improper relations between them, either in the house or out. There was no improper communication between them. He met her just as he met the others in the house, and there was no sign of any former relation between them. He had done every- thing he could short of having an open breach or scandal to prevent her coming to Washington. He thought he first learn- ed of her intention to come to Washington about the third or fourth week of August. He fixed the date because he remembered having a communication from her on the subject while he was engaged in a trial at Nicholasville In the summer of 1887 the plaintiff was thrown from a horse end hurt. When she was able to get about she came to see him in his office. That was about the middle of July. Up to that time there had been no resumption of their im- proper relations. Resumption of Their Relations. Out of the conversation they had at his office at that time grew the resumption of these relations. The plaintiff had been in a newspaper offic? opposite—the oftice of the Gazette. This paper, he sald, was a democratic paper, published by a man |named Gratz, a man who supported him-- man of good judgment,” observed the defendant, with a smile.'’The defendant | was about to go to Nicholasville, and his | buggy was in front of the office. She met jhim ‘there, and made an appointment to see him. At a subsequent interview she told him sh> had nade up her mind to leave Lexington, a3 she could get no satis- |factory employment there; that she was | pursued by gossips. who told ker of her re- lations to Rodes; that she hed consulted | Senator Beck, who had told her that it was ‘the worst thing she could do, or any young j woman could do, to ceme to Washington. When she told him she was poor and need- ed employment the Se-ator told her that if sh> came he would help her. The defend- ant did all he could to dissuade her from | comirg. She told him then that she believed she | was in a delicate condition on his account. | They had one or two unpleasant interviews. The defendant declined to furnish her with | money to come to Washington with, but | had given her money to repay to a person | from whom she said she had borrowed money to come to Washington. This per- son, he understood, was Miss Hoyt. The defendant was not in Washington when she ‘came. That was in September, 1887. He did not come here until October. He did not see the plaintiff when in Washington on that visit. He returned to Washington the 8th of November. His family got here that night and he took them to the Windsor Ho- tel, where he had engaged rooms for the winter. The next night he left again for Lexington. | Met Her Near Washington Circle. In that visit he met the plaintiff on the | street near Washington Circle—about 24th street or 26th street. She informed him she was in a Catholic institute some- where about 2ith or 25th and K streets. She told him then there was no doubt | about her condition. He did not believe he | could recall the name of the institution. His understanding was that she was to remain at the institution. He went back to Kentucky and got back to Washington the day before Congress met. He did not, however, see plaintiff for three months. She had moved to the academy (he thought the name was the Visitation) on Massa- chusetts avenue and she came to see him | at the Capitol. Mr. Butterworth said he understood the {and left at his suggestion to go to the | house of an old woman where he could see her. Had No Knowledge of Her Various Movings. ‘The defendant said that was not so, and her various movings had been made with- lout his knowledge or suggestion, He re- | cetved a number of letters from her, com- plaining of poor health, and stating her | wants, and he had sent her money through | the mail—the general delivery. Never Promised to Marry Her. There was not, he said, a scintilla cf truth in the plaintiff's statement that he had told her that if he could, he would | marry her. There was not, sald the de- fendant, earnestly, a thread of truth in that statement, or that he had ever given the plaintiff an idea of the possibility of such an event. There had never been, he said, an allusion which could possibly be distorted into such a meaning. There hud never been any protestation on his part of love or affection for the plaintiff. Referring to her continement, fendant said she stated to him Eliss had attended her, and when died, Mrs. Bliss. She said that it that Dr. Dr. Bliss had been never known or heard until this suit had commenced that plaintiff had given birth to a livirg child. If he had known that she had given birth to a living chi'd at the date fixed by Dr. Parsons, February 3, 1888, ii would have given him opportunity to break his relations with the plaintiff, for it was impossible for the child born at that time to have been his child. ‘The Interview With Dr. Parsons. The defendant said that in the interview with Dr. Parsons he had not been informed of the birth of a living child. The interview with Mrs. Parsons came about by the de- fendant’s asking Miss Pollard to send her to him, as Miss Pollard indicated that Dr. He came | return to his home in Kentucky until the | 16th of August. Congress adjourned Au-| | plaintiff said she was stopping at St. Ann’s | the de-' a miscarriage. The witress said he had mained there, he thought, two years and six |months—until the fall of 1890.” During that |period there were improper relations be- | tween them, but he could not recall the ex- |act dates. It was some time after she went there before these improper relations were jresumed. He thought he was away from Washington when she left the institution. During defendant's absence in the year 1889 the plaintiff obtained a position in the Agricultural Department. It was after Mr. Harrison’s inauguration. The defendant had nothing to do with that. He would not have hesitated to help her, however, as he had tried to get her a place in the census bureau, but had failed. She had then, through other persons, obtained the plac in the Agricultural Depa | been, he said, no relations between | from 1885 till 1887. The entanglement, he | sald, began really when she came to Wash- ington, for from that time he supported her almost wholly. In 1890 he endeavored to get her to leave Washington, and he secured for her a place in the census | office. Tried to Get Her to Go Away. The plaintiff was a woman of decided in- tellect. He felt that he was entangled, es- pecially after her story that she had been [unfortunate through him. He had told |her that their relations might lead to a scandal destructive to her and to himself. | With her want of self-control he felt there | was danger of an exposure. He had offered her, if she would leave Washington and educate herself, he would furnish her with money, as she was becoming less and less capable of caring for herself and more will- ing to live in the way she was living. He had suggested to her at one time to go to Cincinnati and study music: at anoth- er time, to Cambridge, Mass.; at another time to New York, where she said she could | get empioyment on the Spirit of the Times. | There never was a time when he was not more than ready to carry out any one of these arrangements, but every one was | ended by her declaration that she did not | intend to leave Washington. Some of these interviews were pleasant, entirely amiable, | from which they separated with good feel- |ing, with the understanding that the ar- rangement made should be carried cut. On one occasion she did go to Cambridge in accordance with the arrangement, but, much against his protest, she soon returned. At another time she went to Vermont, to go on @ paper there, and she went away with an understanding that their relations were at an end, but at the time of his wife's death she returned to New York. He believed if it had not been for his wife's death it would have been the end of their relations. Some Unpleasant Interviews. At other times their interviews had been | extremely unpleasant. She had said she in- tended to stay here; that defendant owed it to her to care for her. She demanded money and stated she intended to stay. It would be impossible, he said, for him to re- | peat all that had passed between them in | the six years after plaintiff came to Wasa- j ington. At times he was excessively angry The conversations generally ended with an understanding that their relations would end in a public scandal, involving the de- struction of his family unless he acceded to her requests. In reference to her state- ment that he had accompanied her to lec- tures here, and he had shown her his speeches and helped him revise them, the defendant said that on one occasion ‘only he had gone to a lecture with her. He had ret her on a car on his way to a lecture. She was going to the lecture with a young man, and he saw her and spoke to her. In that sense he had gone to a lecture with her. He said the plaintiff never had re- ised a speech or article of his, There never Was but one human being who had performed such a service for him, and Miss Pollard was not that person. At this point the usual noonday recess was taken. After Recess. When the court met again after recess, Mr. Breckinridge went again on the stand. | Mr. Butterworth called attention to the plaintiff's statement that he was concealed in the room at Miss Hoyt’s when Rozell called and Rozell broke off his engage- ment. He said he had never heard of Ro- zell until this suit was brought, and he had not been concealed in the room at the time she mentioned and that he knew nothing of the occurrence she described. He said he was never in Miss Hoyt’s house until the month of March, 1887, when he went there to occupy a room. He occupied a room (a large room) immediately over the store, kept by Miss Hoyt. Mr. Butterworth here referred to the conversation that Sarah Guest testified to as having taken place between them in 1892 when he asked her to receive the plaintiff in the house. The defendant de- nied this absolutely, and sald that he had not eyen seen Sarah Guest. He denied also the conversation she testified to as having occurred in the fall of 1893. The person who fabricated that conversation, he said, could not have been aware that he was not in Lexington at that time, but was in Washington attending to his public duties. The Plaintifi’s Civil Service Applica- tions. The defendant was here shown the civil service applications filed by the plaintiff at different times. He had, he said, forgot- ten all about the papers of 1890. As to the papers of 1888,he recalled the circumstances. | This was when the plaintiff was at the academy on Massachusetts avenue. She came to him with the papers, and he re- membered indorsing them. The plaintiff failed in that examination, and some time thereafter she made another application. The defendant looked at papers made out in the winter of 1887, and he said he knew nothing of them, an@ had no recollection of them at all. They did not contain his indorsement. The application appeared to have been made in Cincinnatl. The witness | recognized his indorsement on the papers filed in December, 1888. At the suggestion of Mr. Wilson the defendant read all of the indorsement. The defendant said he had no recollec- tion of having noted at all the date given as the date of her birth in the papers. He remembered signing at least two such applications for her. In reference to the 1888 papers the defendant remembered that the plaintiff came to him. He did not recol- lect any special conversation about it. He apprehended at the time that she could not pass, as her education was deficient in cer- tain rudimentary branches, and he thought the examination might reveal her deficien- cies. | | | | A Long Talk With Rodes, The defendant was here taken back to the Monday following his first visit with | the plaintiff to Sarah Guest's house. He said he on that day saw and had a con- versation with Mr. Rodes, which he com- municated to Miss Pollard some months afterward. He met Mr. Rodes at the elec- tioa beoths; it was election day. Rodes told , him. he wanted to have a ect versation with |hin: about Miss Pollara. They went to a room in the defendant's office, and there had a full conversation. Mr. Rodes had been to Cincinnati on Saturday. When he reached Cincinnatt he was informed the plaintiff had left Cit cirnati, and that he (the defendant) had been there to see her. He said he had gone to consult with her and see if she would remain in Cincinnati. He told defendant of their agreement and that in accordance with that agreement he had spent on her a good deal of money. He did not begrudge it, but had become | very anxious as to whether she intended to marry him. He was getting behind and being dunned for payments. Before mak- ing any other arrangement he wanted to see if she would not put an end to the matter by marrying him. He said he was getting old and had not saved any money, and if his married life was to begin, it ought to begin soon. Defendant told him that the plaintiff had told him the same thing; that she felt gratitude to him and respect for him. In the course of the conversation, Mr. Rodes said he not only wanted to marry her, but ought to marry her—that things had happened that made it esp2cially de- sirable that he should marry her—and he | Was anxious to know what he should do. | Mr. Butterworth asked if he said what it was that made it necessary that he should marry her. Mr. Wilson objected. Mr. Butterworth said that he wanted him to state what he had communicated to the plaintiff. The defendant said he could not call to ;mind particularly what he stated to the | plaintiff. He had said to her en several | occasions that Mr. Rodes had told him tlat | he wanted to marry her; that he was much | jin love with her, and that he ougnt to marry her on account of the relations that had grown up between them. Miss Pollard Much Excited. Miss Pollard here showed mu4.. excite- (Continued on Third Page.) but she did not | at cessful attempt to demoralize speculation rtment. There had | 2nd concentrated their forces this morning them | in a strenuous effort to produce a reaction. | | Sequence took on fractional gains. | Was soon recognized. The selling movement FINANCE. AND TRADE| Raid of the Bears Re- sisted. PRICES DROP, BOT AGAIN ADVANCE Attempted Foreign Houses Satisfied With the Veto Message. GENERAL MARKET REPORTS. Special Dispatch to The Evening Star. NEW YORK, March 30.—The bears were disappointed with yesterday's not oversuc- There was no outside pressure to sell, how- ever, and the helplessness of their position was suddenly transformed into a hurried attempt to buy back all stocks outstanding against short accounts, and prices in con- During the first half hour, in which the bulk of the selling was short stock, prices declined from 1-4 to 3-4 per cent, but worked back to initial figures by the noon hour. The last hour's trading was the most spir- ited of the day, prices were advanced all along the line and gains ranging from 1-2 to 21-2 per cent were recorded. —_——— -— FINANCIAL AND COMMERCIAL, The following are the opening, the highest and the lowest and the cloat :g prices of the New York stock market today, as Teported by Corson & Macartney, members New York stock exchange Correspondents Messrs. Moore & Schley, No. 32 Broadway: " Stocks. Open. High. Low. Close. American Sugar. Soy 90 RSH BOK American Sugar, pfa. 88g 88% BT (88% American Tobacco. Six 62% «Sl Say American Cotton 0 Big 823g BOag BOY Atchison .. 15 15K aig 15 ada Southera Can: Ca d St. 1 Chicago. B. an: Chic. and Northwestern. Chicago Gas C., M. and St. Pan C2M. and St Paul, pfa! and Pactfe, ck. and W. Delaware and Hudson. Denver and Rio Grande. Dis. and Cattle Feeding. General Electric and N Long Island... L. N. A. and Chica, Manhattan Elevate Michigan Centra: Missouri Pacific. National Lead Go’: ational Cordage Co ‘ational Cordage, pfd.. ‘ew Jersey Central New York Central. .... N. ¥. and New Engian: N.Y. C. and St. Loui Northern Pacitic Northern Pacific, North American. Pullman P. Car C Richmond Terminal Southern Pacitic. Texas Pacitic ‘Venn. Coai and I Umon Pacitic Wisconsin Cent Silver. Washington Stock Exchange. Sales—regular call—12 o'clock m.—Ameri- can Security and Trust, $ at 135. Metro- politan, Pneumatie Gun Carriage, 100 at 25 cents, 100 at 25 cents, 100 at 25 , 100 at 25 cents, 100 at 25 cents, Government Be —U. S. 4s, reg., 113% 114 asked. U. S. 4s, coup. dig bid. U.S. 5s, 117% bid. District of Columbia Bonds.—20-year fund. 5s, 108 bid, 30-year fund. 6s, gold, 116% bid. ter Stock currency 7s, 190 17 bid. Wa- ter Stock currency 7s, 1903, 120 bid. Fun. 3.658, 111% bid, 118 asked. Leg. a 100 bid. sllaneous Bonds.—Washington and eorgetown Railroad cony. 6s, Ist, 125 bid, S asked. Washington and Georgetown Railroad conv. 6s, 24, 123 bid, 188 asked. Metropolitan Railroad cony. 68, 101%¢ bid, 106 asked. Belt Railroad 5s, 80 bid,90 asked. Eckington Railroad 6s, 80 bid, 100 asked. Washington Gas Company, ser. A, 6s, 1/5 bid, 125 asked. Washington Gas Company, ser. B, 6s, 116 bid, asked. Washington Gas Company conv. 6s, 126 bid. United States Electric Light conv. 5s, 12144 bid, 1242 ed. Chesapeake and Potomac Tele- phone 5s, bid, YSis asked. American Se- curity and Trust 5s, F. & A., 100 bid. Amer- ican Security and Trust 5s, A. & O., 100 bid. Washington Market Company Ist @s, 105 bid, 112 asked. Washington Market Com- pany imp. 6s, 106 bid. Washington Market Company exten. 6s, 103 bid. Masonic Hall Association 5s, 103 bid. Washington Light Infantry Ist 6s, 103 bid. Washington Light Infantry 2d 7s, 101 bid. National Bank Stocks.—Bank of Washing- ton, 310 bid, 360 asked. Bank of Republic, 230 bid, 245 asked. Metropolitan, 275 bid. Central, 280 bid. Farmers and Mechanics’, 190 bid. Second, 140 bid. Citizens’, 130 bid, 140 asked. Columbia, 130 bid. Capital, 115 bid. West End, 107 bid, 110 asked. Traders’, 104 bid, 120 asked. Lincoln, 93 bid, 97 asked. Ohio, 100 asked. Safe Deposit and Trust Companies.. tional Safe Deposit and Trust, 130 bid, 135 asked. Washington Loan and Trust, 121 bid, 125 asked. American Security and Trust, 134% bid, 136 asked. Washington Safe Deposit, 108 askéd. Railroad Stocks.—Washington and George- town, 205 bid. Metropolitan, *90 bid, 100 asked. Columbia, 60 bid, 70 asked. Belt, 22 bid, 32 asked. Eckington, 28 bid. Gas and Electric Light Stocks.—Washing- ton Gas, 46 bid, 46%, asked. Georgetown Gi 47 bid. United States Electric Light, asked. 42 bid, 45 Franklin, 42 bid, 50 asked. Metro- tral. asked. politan, 73 bid. Corcoran, 60 bid. Potomac, 7 bid, 8 asked. Arlington, 159 bid, 162 asked. German American, 162 bid. Na- tional Union, 11% bid, 16 asked. Columbia, 13% bid, 14 asked. Riggs, 61% bid, 7% asked. People’s, 514 bid, 5% asked. Lincoln, bid, Sty asked. ‘Title Insurance Stocks.—Real Estate Title, 112 bid, 120 asked. Columbia Title, *6&% bid, 7% asked, Washington Title, 8% asked. Telephone Stocks.—Pennsylvania,47 asked. Chesapeake and Potomac, 47% bid, 50 asked. American Graphophone, 3 bid, 5 asked. Pneumatic Gun Carriage, .20 bid, .25 asked. Miscellaneous Stocks.—Washington Mar- ket, 12% bid, 15 asked. Great Falls Ice, 137 bid, 160 asked. Bull Run Panorama, 16 bid. Norfolk and Washington Steamboat, 90 bid. Lincoln Hall, 80 bid. Inter-Ocean Building, 100 asked. *Ex. Dividend. Baltimore Markets. BALTIMORE, Md., March 30.—Flour steady, ba 14,368 barrels; shipments, barrels. LS = Badiy; July, 6o'ya gadsy—recelpts, 9,021 a6l; Mare ay 6314; ‘steamer No. 2 "red, 58). bushels; stock, 948,905 bushels; sales, 10.000 bushels—milling wheat by ‘sample, 574261. Corn 23,043; March, 42%a43; April, 42% 42%a43; steamer mixed, 42 bi ip bushels; ‘stock, 545,356 bushels; sales, {000 bushels—soutbern coru” by spi '42a43%4! 7 mpie, do. on grade, 43043%. Oats quiet and casy— white western, 38 asked; No. 2 mixed, 35 receipts, 6,009 bushels; stock, 83,188 bushels. Kye , S4—receipts, "100 bushels; stock, 25,281 Hay quiet—good to choice timothy, $14.50a$15.00. Grain freights quiet and upehas 2 Se dull, weak and unchangs Butter st — faney creamery, 22423; do. snuitation, 16alT ladle, 14a15; good Indl tore’ packed, 10a 11. Eggs weak: neese unchsnged. Chicago Grain on Markets, Reported by, Slisby & Co., bankers and brokers, tr tan Bank building: be econ CHICAGO, March 30, 1894. n. High. Low. . Close. 5e 39: m™ 5% a i 8% 8TH BT aS: 38 2s) 23 i. 11.75 11.42 11.27 11.45 11.90 723 135 690 05 O77 685 600 6.00 5.82 6.00 5.80 6.97 Low. 7.58 z 2 Se the Thermometer. The following were the readings of the thermometer at the weather bureau toda: 8 am., 34; 2 p.m., 48; maximum, 49; mini- mum, 32. Guide-Lights for Men —sT— P ER R Y § Qo very mention is of a stalwart qual- ity. Every quotation is a small Price. Put the two together, and you have a bargain- whole string of them. ‘We are adding fame <o the famous corner, Suspenders. GUYOT'S BRACES—stamped so— 35¢. a Pair. All the otber leading makes—25c. to $4.50 & pair. Full Dress Shirts. A lot of the sort that other folks ask $1 for—five fitting as any—all sizes— 79c. Each. Collars and Cuffs. Six new styles of the 1900 LINEN COL- LARS added to the nine we already had— in our line, at 2 for 25¢. 4ply All-linen Collars, in all sbapes—25c. each. Only the 10-inch LINK CUFFS left, at 15c. a Pair. 50 dozen of the Round and Square-corner Cuffs—sizes 914 to 11%, at 12¢c. a Pai Neckwear. All styles—of better than common quality yed in the spring sbades— 50 Cents. Twice-around BLACK SATIN BOWS— 48 Cents. Twice-around FOUR-IN-HANDS — black satin—50c. WHITE CHINA SILK, REVERSIBLE FOUR-IN-HANDS— 25 Cents. WHITE LAWN FULL-DRESS BOWS—tbe regulation shapes—a quarter quality—for 12 Cents. IMPERIAL FOUR-IN-HANDS— black satin and white silk—worth the 15 dozen Black Satin Tecks—small knot and flowing ends— 29 Cents. WASH NECKWEAR. Made up of Anderson's best Madras- ask your wife what sort of stuff Anderson makes. Nobody ever knew a color of his to fade— GRADUATED FOUR-IN-HANDS IMPERIAL FOUR-IN-HANDS. DE JOINVILLES. Hosiery. 50 dozen of HERMSDORF DYED BLACK HALF HOSB, with high spliced beels and double soles—worth a quarter— 17¢. a Pair. 50 dozen FRENCH BALBRIGGAN HALF HOSE—with silk clocks. We never heard of their being sold for less than 35c. until now— 2sc. a Pair. Spring Underwear. WHITE REFORMED COTTON and DRAWERS—Shirts, from 34 to 44— Drawers, from 30 to 44—big value for the money— 50c. Each. German Made, STEAM SHRUNK, NA- TURAL GRAY SHIRTS and DRAWERS. Guaranteed quality—Shirts, 34 to 44—Dra ers, 30 to 40— 75¢. Each. The AMERICAN HOSIERY COMPANY'S FINE RIBBED REFORM COTTON SHIRTS and DRAWERS—pliable as rubber—soft as = $1.15 Each. The AMERICAN HOSIERY COMPANY'S MERINO SHIRTS and DRAWERS—$1.50 $1.00 Each. A better quality Merino—same make— $1.50 each. GAUZE SHIRTS, with long or short sleeves —all sizes—25e. GAUZE SHIRTS, with long or short sleeves, French neck, felled seams and pearl buttons. Cut long and full—all sizes—0c. RIBBED BALBRIGGAN SHIRTS and DRAWERS—made as strong and durable as can be—such"as you pay 7Sc. for— soc. Each. RIBBED LISLE THREAD SHIRTS and DRAWERS—all sizes—The. each. French Balbriggan Shirts and Drawers— Shirts with long or short sleeves, that run as big as 50 inches. Regular at $1—Special 7sc. Each. JEAN DRAWERS—the best—50c. # pair. NAINSOOK and CROSS-BARRED MUSLIN DRAWERS, with Inserted elastic seams and Siockinet bottoms—Z5c. and $1 a pair. Night Shirts. SUMMER-WEIGHT CAMBRIC NIGHT SHIRTS—a dollar's worth for Te. Neglige Shirts, in a complete variety— 48c. to $2.50. 25c. Silk Garters—all colors—special price, 12¢. a pair. Don't pass us by when you are out shop- ping—don’t hesitate to come in and look, even when you have no intention of buying. ‘There is much to be seen—much to be saved by frequent visits here. Right now is one of the most opportune times. PERRY’S, Ninth And The Avenue. Established 1840. ay ‘Telephone 995. Expert Skill In Fitting E 222: WITH G ming chat ig that WE PIT AND CORRECT VISION. If there is any eerie 4 at any ‘time we will remedy the trouble, W. C. Hicks, “** Yigusns o 604 oth St., wey Bio Jewelry Store, wh 103m READ—S. KANN, SONS & ©0.’S GREAT ADVERTISEMENT ON THE 9TH PAGE TOMORROW. WILL ALL SALES OF THE PAST, it CARBART & LEIDy, $28 Tth st. 708 K at. New Spring And Summer Dress Goods. RT and ingenvit; have clear- t i2%c. the Yard. Si-tnch Crepe Molre—a new and beautiful wash fabric, im and derk colors, for wear. Others are ie. the yard. t 20c. the Yard. Si-inch Black Henrietta Satines —Aumeriean manufrcture (some- times called and sold as French), beautiful flowered designs. 25c. yard ts the regular selling price. it 25c. the Yard. 22 styles of 364nch Wool and Wool aid Cotton Mixtures. We suld this same sort of gonds last Season at SOc. the yard. At 29c. the Yard. 384oh Pigned J: juards, ee and mode. These beve an all- wool filling, are in neat styles und were made to well at 40c. a yard early selling this at t 35c. the Yard. Bi-inch Genuine French Printed Broches, black = and colored frounds, with white dots, fig- ures and Ths is 8 beautiful fabric. At 37%c. the Yard. styles of 36-inch 1s Cboicest styles in India Dim- Itles. Sold elsewhere at 19. yd. READ-—S. KANN, SONS & CO's GREAT ADVERTISEMENT ON THE TOMORROW, WILL ECLIPSE ALL SALES OF THE PaST. at ——— PIERCE’S. Remarkable We've sti rday riven to make trade outvalue en ite decessor, and in our efforts to give greater and greater values as the Saturdays passed by, We've gotten some of the prices down so low that there's no fun in ft. larly is this the case with Gloves. ‘The price ts lower today than it’s ever been Defore. Dozens and dozens of pairs of Regular $1.25 §8-button, Self-stitcbed, Tan, Mode and Brown SUEDE MOUSQUETAIRES, Which were regarded as the “biggest value of the season” et last Saturday's special price, 79 cents, go tomorrow as long as ‘they last for 49¢c. Pair. A magnificent array of Ladies’ $1.25 and $1.50 MUUSQUETAIRE PIQUE DRIVING GLOVES, in tan and English red, goes on sale toworrow at 75 Cents Pair. 4-BUTTON GLACBS, in all the new spring shades, modes, tans, browns and blacks, with large pearl buttons. Regularly $1.25. Special tomorrow, $1.00 the Pair. In Hosiery ‘These values are most interesting wnd at> tractive: Ladies’ Pore Lisle Stockings, with extra high spliced heels and double soles an@ toes, in black sold today for 50 eta, pair, marked down for tomorrow only to 29 Cents Pair. Ladies’ “Richelieu” Ribbed Hose, in black, tan and white, with double heels, tee ond soles, today, 35 cis. pair, special tomorrow only, 25 Cents Pair. Ladies’ Black Stockings, with white Soles (for tender feet), novelties seldom seem, today, 37% cts., tomorrow only, 25 Cents Pair. Children’s Black aud Tan Heavily Rib ded Stockings, with double heels, soles, toes and knees, 6's to i's, special tomer ae 1-2 Cents Pair. Saturday Veilings. Double Width Maline an@ Tuxedo Net, regularly 65 cts. yard. special tomorrow, 50 CTS. YARD. Single Width Tuxedo Net, tn all the new effects, worth 38 cts., special, 25 CENTS Toilet Articles For Saturday Only. 7 odors Triple Extract, ig Cents Ounce. artic Bouquet Regale. and Deletrez’s Triple Goods. C7 Only 2 ounces allowed to @ customer, DO YOU EVER WASH? It washes thin to a wafer. It ts good for the complexion and skin. Such is BUTTERMILK S0aP. Saturday, 25 Cents Box. m2 ie PIERCE nt “Where Quality’s First; Profts Second," 8th St. and Pa. Ave., Tarket Space.