Evening Star Newspaper, April 14, 1894, Page 2

2 LATE NEWS BY WIRE. Collapse of the Revolt in Southern THE EVENING STAR, SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 1894—TWENTY PAGES. THE LAST DAY (Continued from First Page.) dress, Lexington, a Mr. Wilson was referring later to the fact {iss Wilson, 56 North Upper street, Ky.” MELLO AND HIS FOLLOWERS GIVE UP. Sicted bs Store "yancy Sur qaras Out Surrender to the Uruguay. Authorities of | THEY YIELD UP THEIR ARMS MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, April 14.—Ad- miral De Mello and the 1,500 insurgent troops who disembarked on the frontier of Uruguay, after having been driven out of the state of Rio Grande do Sul by the| troops of President Peixoto, have sur- Tendered to the Uruguayan authorities, and the rebellion in Brazil may be sald to have completely collapsed. The authorities of Uruguay have disarmed the Brazilian insurgents. The state of siege at Rio de Janeiro tas been extended to June 13, but It is believed that, In view of the surrender of Admiral De Mello and the insurgent forces, the Brazilian government wt!l shortly be able to raise the state of siege. BUENOS AYRES, Apri! 14—Admiral Da Gama, the fugitive Brazilian insurgent lead- er, has issued a mcnifesto declaring that the commander of the Portuguese warship Min- dello offered him an asylum on board that vessel and that he then detained the Brazil- ians on board, refusing them permission to land, although, according to Admiral Da Gama, the Argentine authorities had ex- pressed their willingness to receive the refugees. . a TODA LONG TRAMP. The Coxey Army March! Maryland. Special Dispatch to The Evening Star. GRANTSVILLE, Md., April 14—In the picturesque camp of the commonwealers a very coid night was passed. The wind howled and roared and many men left camp to seek the more comfortable quarters of the small poiice station, and in many of the barns in the town. Tested for rioting, the result of too much moonshine, and were discharged because they had no money to pay their fines. Many of the men have become sick and unable to go further; dysentery is the principal com- piaint. - Breakfast of hard tack and coffee was served at 7 o'clock, and the men had their canteens filled with coffee to take with them. The officers slept in camp with the men last night, and they are all in a bad state this morning. They are not used to the hardships which the men have undergone. The march was taken up at $:30 and a long tramp of fourteen miles over Meadow mountain is before the miserable common- wealers. Two horses belonging to Coxey were reported unfit for further service and were shot before camp was broken. Browne's big stallion has been put to work in harness and two mules have been purchased to take the place of the horses shot. Supplies are runninz low and it is doubt- | ful whether there will be enough to last as | far as Cumberland, where the next depot of provisions is located. Things are commenc- ing to wear a serious aspect, but in spite of all the discouragement and hardships en- | countered the men are steadfast in their | purpose and say that nothing short of act- ual starvation will keep them out of Wash- ington. Discomforts of the March. By Associated Press. GRANTSVILLE, Md., April 14—The trip | of the past three days has been a wonderful | test of physical endurance of man and beast. While the men have borne up bravel even attempting to keep up their spirits with song and jest, while wading in snow and mud, with the storm penetrating their Fags, the horses have been the greatest suf-| ferers. From the start the horses have been attached to the commissary, band and sup- ply wagons. The long march had told on the animals before Uniontown was reached, but when the climbing of the mountains had begun the poor creatures were barely able to struggle along. It was thought at one time | yesterday that the wagons could not be| brought to this town. The panorama horse gave out and the Texas pony, Princess, used | by Oklahoma Sam, was harnessed up. All day Thursday the army struggled along for over two miles on the national pike. | Each of the five communes is placed in the | rear of a wagon. Thus, as the march progressed, the horses | dropped further and further to the rear, | scattering the forces to an unusual degree. | The men are in good spirits today, but, hav- ing experienced the discomforts of mountain travel, they rather dread the tramp of fou: teen miles to Frostburg. The road is re- ported to be in bad condition. This, with the other drawbacks to speedy traveling, will result in the consumption of at least five hours before the camp is settled for the night. Through, nder Joi Arrested. WILMINGTON, Del. April M—At 2:15 o'clock this afternoon Mayor Shortlidge ordered Commander Jones of Coxey’s army to move on. Jones refused. At the mayor's orders the police began to arrest the army, half of them saved themselves by deserting. ‘The rest, including Jones, were loaded into | patrol wagons and driven to the police sta- | tion. They will be araigned in court xs/ Yagrants. ooo GERMANY HORRIFIED. Several men were ar-/| | the case. With reference to the defendant's admission that he had been to Sarah Guest's house before he knew the plaintiff, he said: “So you see, gentlemen, the defendant was not seduced by the plaintiff; he had been seduced before he ever met her.” Mr. Breckinridge Interrupts. Mr. Breckinridge showed much interest in this statement of Mr. Wilson's, and inter- | rupted the speaker. “Now, if your honor please,” he said, |Jeaning forward in his chair and addressing | the court, “there is no such testimony in | this case. I said I was at the house of Sarah Guest before I was there with this plaintiff, but I never said I was there with any other woman, or there for the same purpose before. I was not asked that ques- tion.” “I believe,” said Judge Bradley, “that that is all there is in evidenc “It ts," urged Mr. Wilson, “a fair matter | of inference in arguing the case.” “There is no such testimony,” persisted | Mr. Breckinridge, “and it is not a fair in- ference. I never—" “You had better have stated that,” said Mr. Wilson, “when on the witness stand.” | “You did not ask that question,” said Mr. | Breckinridge. | “IL am,” continued Mr. Wilson, “drawing |a legitimate inference. You cannot,” he | repeated, turning to the defendant, “testify now.” | “I am not testifying,” said Mr. Breckin- | ridge again. “This is not a fair inference. | You did not ask me the question.” | Judge Bradley remarked that he thought this was a fair matter of argument. “There was rot the slightest testimony that I had ever gone there for that pur- pose,” said Mr. Breckinridge again, before subsiding. “Why,” asked Mr. Stoll, “did you not ask that question?” “Suppose,” said Mr. Wilson, “I had asked that question—who you were there with, what woman you were there with—there would have been an uprising of lawyers.” Mr. Wilson said he knew what was Proper, and in asking the questions had not transcended the limits of propriety. Continuing, Mr. Wilson said that all this from the evidence in the case. The com- mandments of God were written upon tab- lets of stone, and one of them “Thou shalt not commit adultery, other one was this: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Was it not reasonable that a man who had | Violated the one should seek refuge in his defense in a violation of the other? The Contract of Marriage. Having disposed of the credibility that should attach to the testimony of the de- fendant, Mr. Wilson said he would now take up the last theory of the defense. The defendant had admitted that there was a | contract of marriage, but insisted that it was entered into under a mutual agree- {ment that it was not to be fulfilled. The |defendant had claimed that they were wearied of each other, and that the plan | Was that they should die out of each other's | ife. It was a most remarkable way of dying out of each other's life, to go around among people and tell them that they were going to be married! If they wanted to | Separate, why didn’t one go to the right and the other to the left? Why should they go around together telling everybody | that they were going to be man and wife? | Where was the necessity of imposing such |a monstrous deception as this upon their | friends? It was a most ridiculous plea. The burden of proving that such a condi- tion of affairs existed rested upon the de- fense. Mr. Wilson denounced in unmeas- ured terms this theory as a silly and weak fabric raised up to meet the exigencies of In view of all the evidence in this case, could the jury honestly say that even the presumption was in favor of it? Wheth- er it was true or not, this silly, stupid and idiotic pretense of a defense rested solely for its foundation upon the unsupported word of the defendant. Were the natural probabilities of the case in favor of such a state of affairs being true? The whole idea was full of inconsistencies that could rot possibly be reconciled. In order that this agreement should be a defense, it must be conclusively proved that it was a mutual agreement between the parties. It makes no difference at all what was in the defend- ant’s mind; if the plaintiff accepted these | for them rests upon the defendant. If the promises were not to be fulfilled, what was the necessity for ever putting up such a sham? Look at the probabilities of this story and then at the {mprobabilities! Do you mean to say that a girl who was xbout to become a mother would willingly go to the office of the chief of police to have such promises made, if she knew they were never to be Kept? The plaintiff has denied all this. Do you mean to say from the testi- mony in this case that you believe the de- fendant has proved it by a preponderance of the evidence? If he has not proved then it disappears entirely as a defense this case. Mr. Wilson then asked again who this plaintiff was, and what. The lawyers for the defense had characterized her in no delicate words. But no matter what vile names they might bestow upon her, the defendant had made her what she was. He had spoken of her to Mrs. Blackburn, though, as of humble parentage, but an honest, respectable girl. He then referred to the humble surroundings among which the plaintiff had had her origin. Still she might have accomplished a great deal in this world, for she was an ambitious girl, and the fact that she had not made the best of her chances only made the defend- ant’s crime the blacker. Ambition has made the world what it is, but it proved the destruction for this poor girl. He re- ferred to the contract with Rodes, made in pursuance of her hungering desire to get an education, and then to her meeting with the defendant. That First Meetin;:;. He referred to the two accou.ats—that of the plaintiff and that of the defendant—ot their first meeting, saying that the differ- erces in the statements were immaterial. She said that she had written to Mr. Breck- inridge about the Rodes matter, and in re- om ‘A Young and Beautiful Sister of Mercy | Murdered Near Berlin. { BERLIN, April 14.—The authorities of Berlin and its neighborhood, and, incident- ally, the police throughout the empire, are | investigating a terrible crime which has been committed near the Grunewald colony | on the outskirts of this city. | ‘The body of a young and beautiful sister of mercy was found this morning near the road leading to the Grunewald forest dis- | trict. The body of the unfortunate young woman was partly concealed by some | bushes, and a gaping wound in her throat showed how she had met her death. | The authorities were promptly notified,and an investigation was commenced, resulting in the discovery being made that the sister of mercy had been outraged in addition to being murdered. | The peasants of the neighborhood and a! strong force of police immediately began to search the forest for the fiend who kad committed this crime; but up to the time this dispatch is sent no trace of the wretch has been found beyond the fact that about | the spot where the sister of mercy was fourd,there were signs of a desperate strug- | gle and some foot prints of a man, which, | it is hoped, may lead to-his arrest. As the day wore on the authorities re- | @oubled their exertions, as it developed that | a few hours after the murder of the Sister | of Mercy a young peasant girl, who was passing near the Grunewald colony, was set upor by a man. who attempted to assault and tried to cut her throat when she ed. Luckily this young woman was a rful country girl. and she succeeded in fighting off her assailant and in raising such an outcry that a number of people ere soon attracted to the spot, and joined the arch for the man who had as- aeulted From the information gathered by the po- lice, they are of the opinion that the man Who murlered the Sister of Mercy and the man who assaulted the young peasant girl are one and the same person, and a de- ription of this man is now in their | ban. It is supposed that the conductor of a| train which stopped near Charlotteburg has Rotified the * that a man answring the description of the criminal boarded a train at the p referred to, and a scription of this ind has been te ‘idua S-aphed to the police a horities through- excitement prevails in id district courtag the fc hope of captu: lieved that the e man suspe ed by the peasant uh ted and put to death with- out th of placing him in the hands of ihe reg lar authorities, land this was the second of the two. | ters. |tion to this business was not sponse to the letter he came to see her. He said that she wrote him a letter inviting him to come. He said she wrote two letters, She says she only wrote one, and did not write this. So they had had a controversy over the letter. So far as the letter itself was concerned, it was, he maintained, of no con- sequence whatever in the case, though the defense seemed to regard it of the greatest consequence—if she did write it, and she de- nied it. He rehearsed Miss Pollard’s statements on the stand when she declared the letter a forgery. The defense, however, insisted that it was a genuine letter. He, however, said it was a forgery. He did not know who did it, but he knew it was a forgery. He declared that it was manufactured for the purpose of sustaining their third plea in the case. The defense had been trying in every way to prove that plea, and this was rot the only piece of rascality that had been offered for this purpose. They had seen that they had brought forward men and women who had testified falsely, and who had perjured themselves. Then why | would not somebody manufacture this tes- | timony? | The courts, cases. he said, were full of such The Disputed Letter. Mr. Wilson then took up the letter and examined it. The defendant, he said, was in the habit of keeping his business let- She wrote him a business letter; he did not know where it was. Why was it that the first letter he received in rela- produced? Why was it not produced with this Ie! Letter after letter, telegram after tele gram, had been passing between this plaintiit and | defendant for years, but all were gone. | When it was agreed between them last! year that he should care for her, every let- ter she had received from him he got from her, and every letter he had received from | | \ might be naturally deduced by inference| | | promises in good faith, the responsibility | { many testifying on one side as another. They would never get rid of ~he pollution of the stream of justice by expert testi- mony, until some law was passed by which the court should call in the experts ard that they ould not have mea paid £25, $50 or $100 a day for testifying on one side or another. It was amazing, he said, that the courts should have tolerated the exist- ing system so long as they had tolerated it. He referred to ‘ol.” Hay as a most agreeable person, who would make a man “feel at home ia his own parlor’ more than any other man he knew. He referred to the testimony which had been brought up in cross-examination given by Mr. Hay in the Washburn case. He spoke of “Col.” May as having entirely changed his opinion while under examination, but still, having been so agreeable as to have made the com- mittee feel entirely at home all the time. He referred to the Morey letter controversy also, as throwing discredit on expert _testi- mony. Forgeries, he said, were made for a purpose, but the man who did a forgery was apt to put a little of his own hand- writing in it that would show that it was a | forgery. How did they get the Wessie Brown letter in order to make compari- sons? The testimony showed that Mr. Stoll had got that letter, and had carried it about with him in his pocket. Mr. Stoll's Inquiries. “Mr. Wilson,” said Mr. Stoll, whose face looked grim and white, “do you mean to insinuate that I forged that letter?” “I do not, sir,” said Mr. Wilson. “I do say that some skilled penman forged the letter.” “Do you mean to say,” “Do you meah to say,” persisted Mr. Stoll, “that I got it for that purpose?” “I did not say that. I say that you had the Wessie Brown letter, and you did have it,” went on Mr. W. “T Gid,” saia M . Turning to the j . Mr. Wilson said that the defense had spent hours in traducing this plaintiff. “They are not,” he said, “going to intimi- @ate me from the discharge of my duty, as I understand it to be.” Mr. Wilson claimed the right to present the facts to the jury as they appeared in testimony. He handed the letter which, it is claimed, was forged, to the jury, asking them to inspect it and compare certain words, and the jurors spent some minutes on the task. Mr. Wilson then resuming, said that he Proposed to consider the aspect of the case, assuming that she wrote it, although ke de- nied utterly that she did write it. One of the jurors here asked if he could examine the letter in connection with one of a later date. Mr. Wilson said he had none in his hand, but would be glad if they would make such an examination. Mr. Breckinridge and Mr. Stoll produced a bundle of letters which were handed to the jury. Mr. Stoll Breaks Out. Mr. Stoll resumed his seat, and, Mr. Wil- son stood silently at his post in front of | taken. the jury. Mr, Stoll was glaring at Mr. Wil- son, and very white. He was evidently deeply angered by what Mr. Wilson had said concerning himself in regard to the forgery. Suddenly he spoke with great dis- tinctness and deliberatton. “There is," he said, “another court in which the vile insinuation you have made tegarding me will be tried.” Mr. Wilson looked toward him and said: “As you have made that statement publicly, will you explain what you mean?” “I mean,” said Mr. Stoll, “that you iIn- sinuated that I had something to do with that forgery, and that I denounce as vile and infamou: “What do you mean,” repeated Mr. Wil- son, “by ‘the other court?" “Bh the question. Judge Bradley here rapped on the desk and ended the colloquy, saying: “Now, gen- — I think we have had enough of that.” Mr. Wilson then went on with his argu- Mec ee eee EY and) whan Indkaleaie vaun eines eceie Mr. Stoll’s remarks. He dissected the letter and maintained that, even if a genuine letter, it could not materially affect the case. He referred to the meeting of the defendant and the plain- tiff at the Wesleyan College. The Defendant as a Prenéher of Vir- tue. He spoke of the defendant's position, the fact that he had preached virtue to young girls, the chosen instructor. But on this oc- casion, with this young girl, who needed bis advice, he preached no such virtue. a cording to his statement there was no 1ro- testation of love. He simply proceeded to gratify his beastly appetite. It seemed to be an idea this defense would have the jury aecept that there could be no such thing seduction unless one got be.ieath the lady's window with a lute and sang love songs to her. He claimed that Mr. Breckinridge had not gone there agcidentally and inadvertent- ly in a closed carriage that hot August night. Every circumstance showed design on his part. Mr. Wilsen proceeded, comparing the plaintiff's and the defendant's accounts of the journey to Lexington, and the visit to Sarah Guest's, maintaining that probability was all on the side of her testimony. As to their subsequent relations, Mr. Wilson said that the defendant had complete con- trol of the plaintiff's person; it did not mat- ter how often they met; the relations be- tween them were admitted by the defend- ant. As to the birth of the child here in 188%, Mr. Wilson said Mr, Breckinridge had | | | | | i} said Mr. Stoll, who had not caught | A KNOWN QUANTITY. It is the practice of The Star to print on Saturday a sworn statement of its circulation day by day for the preceding week. It would seem self- evident that the advertiser is entitled to this protection, but The Star is alone in this custom as far as Wash- ington {s concerned. Below will be found the statement for the week just past. The average circulation exhibited is believed to be nearly, if not quite, double the combined circulation of the other Washington dailies, and fully five times that of its afternoon contemporary. Cirenlation of The “Evening Star.” SATURDAY, April 7 18%. MONDAY. Aprit 9, 1s94. TUESDAY, April 10, 1894, WEDNESDAY, April 11, 1894. THURSDAY, April 12, 1894. FRIDAY, April 13, 1994... Daily average. . . 38,001 I solemnly swear that the above statement rep- resents only the number of copies of THE CVEN- ING STaR circulated during the six secular days end- ing Friday, April 18, 1394—that is, the num- berof copies actually sold, delivered, furnisied ormailed, for valuable consideration, to bona fide purchasers or subscribers, and that none of the copies so counted were returned to or remainin the office unsold. J. WHIT. HERRON, Cashier Evening Star Newspaper Co. Subscribed and sworn to before me this fourteenth day of April, A. D. ise4, JAY B. SMITH, Notary Public, D. Ce Street on the single point whether the plaintiff was taken there by her, or sent there some other way. The plaintiff said her child was born on the 29th; the records of the institution show that a child was born there on that day. How would the plaintif® have known of this,tea years later, if that child was not hers? The essential details of her story were all supported by other testimony, although the defense had attempted to throw a cloud of doubt over it without success. He would not think of claiming that these sisters of the asylum, holy and good women, could intentionally have falsified. He did think they might have been mis- As an example, two of the sisters had testified that Dr. Street was never at the asylum, but Sister Cecelia, then the superior, whose duty it was to know such things at the asylum, testified that Dr. Street was at the asylum twice, or on three occasions when she came to see this very woman, Mrs. Bergwynn. So much for the testimony of the sisters. The Volumes of Irving's Books. Mr.Wilson referred to the famous Parkman murder case to show that apparently the most trifling incident may sometimes reveai the truth. In that case the culprit was dis- covered through a set of false teeth, which was all that was left of the burned body of the murdered man. So in this case, the volumes of Washington Irving’s played a part of vital importance. The plaintiff had had the books at Mrs. Ketcham’s They were taken away and never brought back. Ten years later she found the books at Nor- wood, after saying that she had given the | books to the sisters when she went eway from the asylum in 18% The books were stated on the stand that these books had been given to her by some girl, as she was leaving the asylum, years ago. The books were taken away by Mr. Stoll and turned over to the commissioner in Cincinnati, and it took an order from this court to bring them out of the custody of the defense. There was undoubtedly some uncertainty as to the girl's name at the asylum, for she naturally doing every- thing she could to conceal her identity, but the books were undoubtedly the ones she presented to the asylum, and came into this case. like the false teeth in the other, to be a matter of the greatest importance. On the very doctrine of the probabilities of the case Was it reasonable to think that the defendant did not know where the plaintiff was when she was away to give birth to a child of which he was the father? Further, the defense had wished to give the jury the belief, by inference, that Mr. Carlisle or Mr. Johnson had placed that all important Christmas card in the book. Mr. Stoll interrupted the speaker to tell | him that they had not attempted to prove | anything of the sort. Mr. Wilson answered that there would have been no use in at- | tempting any such thing, but that they had implied that very thing and that the two | acknowledged that he was the father of it | in many ways, and finally by paying the bill of Dr. Parsons. Subsequentiy, when she was at the Holy Cross Academy, he had continued these relations and down to the end he had been constant in his attentions. It made no matter, he said, whether she invited him to that school to see her or not ever since that hour he had been ber con- stant attendant. Was it probable that a woman who had so lived for nine years, when the time came when he could put her in a proper position, was it probable that she would make such an agceement as this defendant had testi- fied to? At this point the usual noon recess was taken. No Hor le Meeting. There seemed to be an impression among | the spectators that a hostile meeting of some kind would occur between Mr. Wilson and Mr. Stoll when the court adjourned fer recess. Neither of the gentlemen in ques- tion, however, seemed either to avoid such @ meeting or to seek it. Mr. Stoll remained sitting at the counsel table with Mr. Breck- inridge and Mr. Butterworth for five min- utes after the court had announced a re- cess. Mr. Wilson had, with his usual de- liberation, collected his papers, placed them in his bag and then passed out of the -ourt room in company with Mr. Carlisle. One or two of his friends spoke to him as he passed out, evidently offering their kindly services in case of any difficulty, but Mr. Wilson did not treat the matter seriously at all and laughed them off. Flowers for Mr. Wilson. During recess a basket of beautiful long- stemmed roses was brought to the court house, on which was a card bearing the name of Mr. Wilson, the plaintiff's senior counsel. The basket of flowers, sever: feet in height, was placed in the private office of Marshal Wilson, the marshal not deeming it best to place it anywhere else. Attached to the basket was a note and also the cards of the following ladi Mrs. Dan. Waugh of Indiana, Mary Desha, the sister of the defendant's late Mi: Loutse Lowell, Lovica_ White, Wi Z L. te, Mr: on Trusler of In diana, Mrs. Carrie Wilson, Mary M. Steele, Mrs. Bertha L. Merrill and Mrs, E. M. Candee. What Will Mr. Stoll Dot Mr. Stoll during the recess remarked that he did not propose doing anything regard- ing Judge Wilson's remarks during the progress of this trial, but that after it was over he “would have his innings.” her he had destroyed. This one letter was | the only letter produced. The experts ad- mitted that compared with the Wes r: there were as many disst s similarities in a specific compa son of letters. This expert testimon: simpiy the merest trash as ev this hour, strange to say, the courts had not said e will not consider it at all,but we will let it go to the jury. | As to Expert Testimony. Mr. Wiison desired to read an authority on the subject of expert testimony, but Mr. | Stoll objecting, Mr. Wilson handed the book to the court and proceeded with his address to the jury. These experts, he aid, were employed to testify. They got 5, $) or $100 a day for testifying, and did ne presume that they were going to t the man who employed them. ed that they charged not accord- to the lue of their testimony < to the strain on their conscience. | In forgery cases they would find just as He presun but ac- | | an hour or more to sp After recess Mr. Wilson, who had still kK, again continued In commencing, his address to the jur; | doctor's bill, but he did it not knowing that | |lawyers never would have gone upon the stand to disclaim any such connection with the card unless the imputation of evil had been cast upon them. it was a curious thing that the card tad come into this case attached to a deposi- tion and not with the books. But he did not care a whit for the card. There was ro doubt about the books being the same books and they proved conclusively that she was at the asylum and he was the cause of her being there. The Child Born in Washington. As to the child that was born in this city, the defendant had admitted that he paid the |a live child was born, but supposing there |had been a miscarriage. | | he said that in his remarks he had no in-| tention of insinuating that Mr. forged that letter, or had procured it for that criminal purpose. He only wanted to show them how easy It was to secufe the Wessie Brown letter for any purpose what- ever. In what he had to say this afternoon he would again have occasion to use Mr. Stoll’s name, for the reason that he was a part of the case, and as such he could not do less as_a lawyer than to refer to Mr. Stoll, and Mr. Stoll could not ask him to do less. The Child in 1585. In 1885 the plaintiff realized that she was about to become a mother, and she claims that the defendant was the father of the child. Was there anything in the case that made it look as though he were not? She to Dr. reet’s, in Cincinnati, at his . she claims, and is it not lixely was the case? to her being at Norwood, how would it ever have pr sented itself to her inind ay that she had been there if she had not? Mr. Stoll had spent seven hours cros: mining Dr. Stoll had} | kind to her. | debauched Bathsheba and then he What difference did it make what he thought. They had | erdeavored to cast a doubt upon Dr. Par- | Sons because she did not make a record of the birth at the health office. But this was not the plaintiff's fault. But there was a record that should have been filed in New York and that was the record of the defendant’s marriage. It was the defendant's own fault that that record was not filed, and, further- more, the certificate contained a falsehood inthis own handwriting. He cculd even get experts to testify that the signature of Dr. | Paxton was also in his handwriting if he chese to offer the experts a fee of $30 a day. That was all that expert testimony is worth. Coming down again to the alleged under- ! standing between the parties as to the promises of marriage Mr. Wilson asked earnestly if it was among the reasonable probabilities that such an agreement could ever have been entered into by the girl? The marriage meant everything in the world to her and there was overwhelming evidence to show that promises were made upen which she based all her hopes for the future. It was absolutely improbable, ab- solutely imp ble that any such under- |standing as to the promises could ever have existed. The defendant claims that he told her that she was not a fit woman to be his wife. Was he any better than she? Was he not rather worse? She had violated no marital vows, as he had done. The obli- gation resting upon him to marry that woman when he could was a_ thousand times stronger, Mr. Wilson said, than he could press, Mr. Wilson then repeated the sequel to the story that Nathan told to David, which he told to the jury ssterday. David had ade ‘olo~ David did the just thing by Bath- her his wife and she bore him a son, mon. sheb Why might not Mr. Breckinridge ha done, the same thing by Madeline Pollard? He should have married -her. Miss Po ard'’s Devotion. Speaking of the devotion of Miss Pollard, | Mr. Wilson referred to the poem of “Roger and I,” the rhythmical story of the tramp and his dog. He spoke of the fidelity of the dog, who had starved himself to death for the man who had never done him a kindness. He spoke of a woman's devotion twining the tendrils of her heart around a/| man; her heart breaking when he was un- He referred to the story of Hester Prince, and the young minister | who was put on the platform to address her and implore her to tell who was the author | of her sorrow, her shame Hester Prime shook ner head; she would not tell. He pleaded with her eloquently, but she wouldn't tell. But that man did not put her aw: he had the heart of | David: he had a conscience. ‘They kept | them somewhat together. Yet this defend- ant, who was the author of all this wom- | an’s shame and sorrow, came before this jury to blacken and villify the woman whom he has destroyed. for a Verdict. he asked, are they to do in this case? They could have no more of these reparations in the way Absalom dealt with Ammon. In There would have been But the law now provides anoth- not the javelins of the servants of but the javelins of their verdict. no jury. er w Absalom, ee It was through that verdict that this breach | of contract was to be repaired. | This jury was armed with the spear of | the law, and the question was, what would | they do with it? They had this weapon in, | their hands, and he invited them, as the last words he could utter in this case, to | | impale him with that spear, hold him aloft | | that all the world could see, be warned and | | ery out, as justice was done, Amen and) amen! | Mr. Wilson thanked the jury for their at- tention, and took his seat. The Judge's Charge. Judge Bradley then, at 2 o'clock, charged the jury. He said that it was a matter of congratulation to the court snd the community that the case was #bout to | come to a cigse. He referred to the publi- cations which had been made, ard said it was also a matter of congratulation that they were to cease. To the lawyer, he said, the case presented very few points of interest. If the parties had been obscure it would probably have | excited little attention. But owing to the prominence of one of the parties of the | case, it had attracted wide attention, and | because, he feared, of a prurient interest | in the details of the case, the courthouse | had been besieged by persons seeking ad- | mission to the room. He said that the pub- | lic was to be congratulated upon the in- frequency of such cases. Deluged With Anonymous Letters. He said the court had been deluged with | anonymous letters and suggestions as to | the conduct of the case. Even the jury, he! was informed, had not been free from such suggestion. He trusted and believed that | the jury had faithfully observed the in- junctions of the court not to discuss the case. Whatever they had heard or read about the case not developed in the testi- mony they should, and he hoped they would, entirely disregard. Judge Bradley referred to the saying that there were three parties to the case—the community as weli as the defendant | and plaintiff. The community, he said, | had no interest in a private cause—no actual concern or interest, except to see | that justice was done. The jury were not | to concern themselves about the vindica- tion of womanhood or of the country girl in_the abstract. Their duty was to vindicate the truth. They were not to settle any abstract ques- tions of morality. The Question for the Jury. The question they were to decide was whether any contract of marriage had been made between these two parties. This they cannot decide from the evidence without | reference to sentiment or personal wishes. | Whether the defendant ought, as a mere | matter of sentiment, to have married the | plaintiff, was not the question. The question was only whether such a! contract had existed and had been violated. It was not their province by their verdict to repair the character of either party. He said that they must not consider at all the intimation that the suit had been brought | to in some way punish the defendant. He referred to the testimony in the case, some of which had been of a character thai; could not be spread before the public. He said that to the credit of both the plaintiff and the defendant their stories had been told in as clean language as it was possible | to clothe them in. | He complimented counsel also on the tact | with which they had handled the case. | He regretted, however, that in one case counsel had not restrained himself to the same degree. He referred to the testimony, gcing over the whole lines of the defendant and the plaintiff, and said this testimony was of value to them in weighing the prob- abilities of the case. The plaintiff referred to the history of their relations with each other and to promises made to her in the Fresence of third parties as well as to a promise made to her when they were alone. | The defendant denied that when alone | with the plaintiff he had ever made such a promise, and declared the promises made in the presence of third persons were made in| pursuance of an understanding that they | were to make such representations in order to create an erroneous impression. | Judge Bradley then referred to the in- structions which had been granted, and read them, commenting briefly on them as he pro- ceeded. Those Allowed for the Plaintif. | ‘The instructions asked for by the plain- | | tiff, as finally amended and allowed by | | Judge Bradley were as follows: | | ‘The jury are instructed that this is an act ‘for a breach of a contract for marriage. If the jury find from the evidence that there were mutual promises of marriage, as claim- | ed by the declaration, that would constitute |a breach of contract. And the jury are further instructed that if after such con- tract was made, the defendant married another person, that would be a breach of the contract and the plaintiff, would be en- | titled to recover and it would be no defense | to this action that he had carnally known | the plaintiff before or after such contract; ror would it be a defense that she had illicit | intercourse with another person, if such were the fact, before she had such inter- | course with him, if he knew the fact at the time of making the contract. The jury are instructed that if they be-) | Heve from the evidence that the defendant | made any of the alleged promises of mar- statements were made by the plaintiff and defendant in the presence of or to third persons that they were engaged to be mar- ried to each other or that they intended to marry each other, that such statements were made pursuant to a prior understand- ing and agreement between the plaintift and defendant for the purpose of deceiving such third persons, and were not made in good faith, such statements are not to be taken as constituting or evidencing the existence of a contract to marry. The jury are instructed that the burden of proof to establish the contract sued on is upon the plaintiff, and that they should find for the defendant, unless they believe from all the evidence in the case that it Was mutually agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that they were in fact to be married. Even if the jury should find from the evi- dence that a contract of marriage was en- tered into between the plaintiff and the de- |fendant, yet, if they further find from the evider ce that prior to that time the plain- tiff had been guilty of lewd and lascivious conduct with other men, and that such fact was unknown to the defendant, then the | defendant was not bound by such contract, but was by said fact of prior lewd and lascivious conduct, if it had existed, re- leased from any obligation to marry the plaintiff, and had the right to refuse to perform h contract; and this is so by reason of said fact, if it had existed, 6 whether at the time of his refusal or not, | he knew of such prior lewd and lascivious conduct. If the jury shall find from the evidence that the plaintiff had been guilty of lewd and lascivious conduct with a man named or called James C. Rodes, and that the de- fendznt had condoned such acts with said Rodes, yet, if they find from the evidence that the plaintiff had been guilty of lewd and lascivious conduct with some other man, the verdict must be for the defend- ant, even if the knowledge of such conduct did not come to the defendant until after his refusal to marry the plaintiff. if the jury find from the evidence that there was a contract of marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant, and also fail to find that the defendant has been re- lieved therefrom, they may, in mitigation of the damages, consider the plaintiff's general character, if the same was bad, and they may also consider, for the said purpose, the plaintiff's admitted want of virtue, unless they believe that she was seduced by the defendant. As to the Burden of Proof. Judge Bradley said the question was whether there was a contract made by the defendant with the plaintiff in good faith on her part. Then even if there were a mental reservation on his part the con- tract was binding. In respect to the bur- den of proof the judge said that if the amount and degree of evidence necessa’ to support the plaintiff's allegation was | found to exist then the burden of proof was shifted to the defendant to establish by a preponderance of the evidence any defense to or releasé from such promise. Further commenting on the instructions | Judge Bradley said that any knowledge | | the defendant might have of previous er- rors on the part of the plaintiff would be condoned so far as he was concerned by a promise of marriage. As to any matter of defense that might have been considered to have arisen out of the fact that the defendant was married at the time that any one of these were promises made, Judge Bradley read the instructions on that point. He quoted then from a Mass- achusetts authority to the effect that the defendant could not thus escape responsi- bility and that damages to the plaintiff were not lessened by such circumstance. To be matter of defense in this case im- proper conduct on the plaintiff's part must be more than mere girlish impropriety. There must be some impropriety of a gross- er character than that intimated by the deposition of Mr. Julian, who testified to the mock-marriage. ‘ Mr. Julian, he said, testified that the plaintiff had been drinking and that he per- formed the mock marriage ceremony be- | tween plaintiff and Owen Tinsley; that <f- terward he or some one suggested that it was customary for married people to retire; that thereupon they had gone upstairs and she had lain on the bed, and he sat down on it. That was all that occurred, so far as the testimony aisclosed. There was no such gross impropriety either in the occur- rences testified to by Mr. Rozell. As to Damages. If the evidence satisfied the jury that there was no contract of marriage, they would not be troubled by some of the in- structions, for they would not have to con- sider them; but if they were satisfied that | there was such a contract, then there were certain elements to be taken into considera- tion in computing the amount of damages. | He referred to the instructions prayed for by the plaintiff and granted respecting the injury done to the plaintiff. Compensatory damages, he said, meant such an amount as would compensate the plaintiff for the injury she had received. By, exemplary damages was meant some- | thing imposed by way of penalty for gross L. N. A. an wrong done by the defendant. To sum it all up, if they failed to find any ‘evidence that a contract of marriage was | |made, or that if it was made, but. there were facts which relieved the defendant from its performance, they should find a FINANCE AND TRADE Fluctuations in Sugar the Feature in Wall Street. INDUSTRIALS THE ONLY ATTRACTION Demand for Stock by Investors Increasing. GENERAL MARKET REPORTS | Special Dispatch to The Evening Star. NEW YORK, April 14.—A description of | today’s stock market involves nothing be- | yond a record of the fluctuations in Sugar. | This specialty absorbed all the business and | Was not partial to either cl | giving each an opportunity to. wo reg equal profit. The bulls were first favored | with @ rise of 3 1-4 per cent to 99 and then (on realizing and short selling the price was | dropped back to 96 and closed at a net gain of 11-4 per cent for the day. The fact that Sugar has held well on moderate dealings _ throughout the week, without any unneces- |Sary prominence being given the pool's | operations, has been regarded as a sure sign pe activity such as transpired today, and The suddenness of the spurt in a further set back, but it that it is only the ment to mark the price somewhere near the point Warranted by the company’s enormous earnings. The preferred stock of this company gained 1 per cent, in sym- pathy with the movement in the common. Washington advices continue confident of Sugar getting just what it wants in the row none con ee tariff, and a verifi- ca’ ispatches only bull argument now Jacking. shea ' merican Tobacco ined 1 91 on moderate trading. ‘Traders ro i clined to regard the recent rise in this stock | With suspicion, as being the result of ma- unloading may is nipulation for the purpose of pool holdings. In the railroad list narrow and unimportan’ lJower, but subsequently record gains varying from 1-8 to ‘cent over our closing. The amount | business on this side for foreign accounts is still Mmited. Atchison is stronger on the prospects @ satisfactury reorganization, which a ises to be less expensive to the ers than was at first supposed it mee § that a. material made in the work of reorgaa! property until the earnings show improvement. The bank statement contains gratifying increase in loans which that one per cent money has at last A satist: fuct he uations were I 80 as to 3-8 per he pian il ed to the borrowing public. increase in lawful money is also The statement in detail follows: Reserve, | increased $33,025; loans, increased 96,512,500; = cone ce | $476,000; legals, increased »808,800; deposits, increased $9,000,500, circulation decreased st02.000. = li _~ FINANCIAL AND COMMERCIAL, The following are the ope opening, the the lowest and the closirg prices of the ‘yore stock market toda) reported Corson & Macartney, members New York | Correspondents Messrs. Moore & Schley, » Broadway: Stocks, American Sugar... American Sugar, pfa. — eenaeee . met in Cott \.. Atchison on Ot Denver and Rio Grande. and Cattle Feeding. | General Electric | Iimois Central. Lake Shore. , Ene * | Louisviie and Long Island... | ennectan Elevated. icmgan Central insour! Pacine rdict for the defendant; if they found that }a@ contract was made and there were no | Tiage in bad faith, not intending te keep the | facts relieving the defendant from its per- those days the way would | | have been simple. ; Same, and further find that the plain- tiff understood and accepted such promises |in good faith, and agreed to marry the de- _fendant, the bad faith of the defendant is no defense in this action. | In determining whether the plaintiff in good faith understood and believed the de- fendant to be sincere in his promise to marry her, or whether she understood and agreed that the said promises were not to be kept by the defendant, the jury are to consider the condition of the plaintiff at the | time and times, and also the conduct of the defendant at, about and after the time of such promise. | If the jury find from the evidence that the defendant promised to marry the plain- uff, and that the plaintiff accepted these promises in good faith and promised to marry the defendant, then the burden of | the proof is upon the defendant to estab- lish by a preponderance of evidence any de- fense to or release from any such promise, | and it would not be a defense if he had had | illicit relations with her before or after such promise, or that he had been informed by her prior to said promise that she had | had illicit relations with another. |_ The defendant, having asserted that he had had carnal knowleige of the plaintiff before the making of the alleged promise to marry, and having asserted that he knew she was not a Virgin and free from sexual fault at the time of his first intercourse with her, the jury are instructed that, even if they believe from the evidence that the plaintiff was not chaste before such ntercourse with the defendant, and that he knew of such previous unchastity, such facts would not justify a verdict for the defendant if the jury believe that the con- tract of marriage was therefore made. If the jury find from the evidence that the plaintiff did tell the defendant, as he states, that she had been imprudent with James C. Rodes, and thereafter, and, after the death of his wife, he promised to marry the plaintiff, and she him, the fact that she had infcrmed him that she had had illicit relations with the said Rodes would ‘not affect the validity of his contract of marriage, or further justify his refusal to keep said promise. As to Damages. If the jury find from the evidence that the defendant was married on the 2th day |of April, 1893, that he kept, and caused to be kept, that marriage a secret there- after, and that without disclosing the fact of that marriage he promised to marry the plaintiff, or repeated or avowed a previous- ly made engagement of marriage with her, such secret marriage would be no Cefense to this action. | The jury are instructed that if they find for the plaintiff in estimating the damages they are to consider all the facts in evi- dence as to the relations between the par- ties up to the breaking of the promise, the prospective pecuniary and social advan- tages to the plaintiff from such marrige, the injury to the plaintiff's feelings and reputation by its violation, the manner and | circumstances of its violation, and the suf- fering of the plaintiff caused thereby, and | its effects upon her means of earning a | livelihood in the future; and the jury are | also to take into consideration the wrong | committed by the defendant and may award | exemplary damages as well. | If the jury find for the plaintiff, and they further find that the plaintiff chaste and pure from sexual fault, save with the defendant; or if they further believe that | the defendant knew this and that the at- tempt to impeach the plaintiff's chastity and character was not made in good faith | by him, but merely as a means of defense, or to injure the plaintiff, then they ma: consider those facts in assessing the dam- | ages, but the jury cannot award more than | the amount charged in the declaration, to wit., $50,000, For the Defense. ‘The instructions asked for by the defense, as finally amended and allowed, were as follow: | Before the plaintiff can recover in this action the jury must believe from all the evidence that the contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant by which they agreed with each other to be- come husbend end wife. If the jury find fiom the evidence that i formance, they should find for the defend- ant. At 306 p.m. the jury took the case and retired. The Jury Retired. At 3:07 o'clock the judge finished his charge and the jury retired. —— COLD WLCO4E FOR COXEY. Cumberland Disposed to Special from a Staff Correspondent. CUMBERLAND, Md., April 14.—Cumber- | land and Allegany county do not take kind- ly to the invasion of the Coxey army, which will reach here tomorrow early in the day on its way to Washington. There is talk of a possible injunction to prevent the army marching further through Maryland, and it is understood that Judge Hoffman has cx- pressed a willingness to issue such an in- junction. From the sentiment here, there will be little or no trouble in getting to- gether enough deputies to turn Coxey’s ag- gregation back into Pennsylvania if the court should take a hand. The only known Coxeyite in the city is the mysterious veiled lady who fiits along with the army and is understood to be the wife of “Unknown” Smith. She is hiding here at a boarding house on Frederick Street. She appeared today at the door long enough to tell your correspondent that she had no connection with the army and knew nothing of its plans or operations. Coxey will receive litle material support at this point. He will be camped in the base ball park, just outside of town, and will be closely watched. Last night the city councils refused to make any appropriation to buy provisions for the army, and today the county com- missioners took like action, besides au- thorizing the sheriff to call in any deputies he might need. Some of the coal companies and others whose property is in the neigh- borhood of the camping ground have called on the sheriff to protect their property. There are a large number of tramps and “vags” in town, and many are supposed to be waiting the arrival of the army. Cc 2 RALTIMOI . Ma. cyanged—recelpts 2 ushels—southern corn by sampie, 4a4n: grade, 46%. Oats firmer—No. 2 white , ™ 2 mixed westes » Byars, Rye. dallreceipta bushels. Hay ste $14.50a$15.00. Grain rmery. 28: do. imitation, “18a 3 good ladle, I4al5: store Eggs firm—1ityald. Cheese un- > Chicago Grain and Provision Markets Reported by Silsby & Co. bankers and by Metropolitan Bank building: — CHICAGO, April 14, 1894. ‘Open. High. Low. Close. Wheat—April i 5S ited ez New York Cotton, Month, X and St. Northern Pacific... | Nortnern Pactfc, pfd North American. aa z : yf Wheeling & La Wheeling & LE Western Union Ti 20% ay as 2 ny 50m otf —_—___ Paton Stock Exchange. Sales—regular call—12 o'clock m.—U. 8. 4a, 'reg.. $000 at 14. United States Blectrie Light conv.5s, $1,000 at 1264. United Electric Light, 10 at 125; 15 at 125; | Government Bonds.—U. S. 4s, reg., 114 | 14s asked. U.S. 4s, coup., 114 bid, asked. U.S. 5s, 117% bid. District of Columbia Bonds.—20-year fund. | 5s, 108 bid. 30-year fund. gold 68, 116 bid. | Water 8tock currency 1901, 117 bid. Ws ter Stock currency 7s, 108, 120 bid. Fund. currency 3.65s, 111% bid, 113 asked. Reg. 2-10s, Sigs, 101 bid. Miscellaneous Bonds. — W: and Georgetown Railroad conv. 68, Ist, 130 bid, {138 asked. Washington and own | Railroad conv. ¢s, 2d, 130 bid, 138 asked. Metropolitan Ratlroad conv. 6s, 101 bid, 105 asked. Belt Railroad 5s, 85 bid, 9% asked, Eckington Railroad 6s, 94 bid. Washington Gas Company, ser. A, 6s, 115 bid. Washing- ton Gas Company, ser. B, 6s, 116 bid. Wasi ington Gas Company conv. @s, 130 bid, 135 asked. United States Electric Light conv. is, 1 bid. Chesapeake and Potomac Tele- phone 5s, 97% bid, 102 asked. American Se- curity and Trust 5s, F. & A., 100 bid. Ameri- can Security and Trust 5s, A. & O., 100 bid. Washington Market Company Ist 6s, 105 bid. Washington Market Company imp. 6s, 105 bid, 112 asked. Washington Market Company exten. 6s, 104% bid. Masonic Hall Assoctation Ss, 104 bid, 110 asked. Wash- ington Light Infantry 1st 6s, 104 bid. Wash- ington Light Infantry 2d 7s, 100 bid. National Bank Stocks.—Bank of Washing- | ton, 310 bid, 325 asked. Band of Republic, | 285 bid. Metropolitan, 280 bid. Central, 239 | bid. Farmers and Mechanics’, 190 bid. Sec- ond, 140 bid. Citizens’, 130 asked. Colum~- bia, 125 bid. Capital, 116 bid. West 105 bid, 1054 asked. Traders’, 104 bid. Lin- coln, #) bid, 97 asked. Ohio, 80 bid, 8 asked, Safe Deposit and Trust Companies.— tional Safe Deposit and Trust, 139 bid, 135 asked. Washington Loan and Trust, 129 bid, 126 asked. American Security and Trust, 133% bid, 134% asked. | Railroad Stocks.—Washington and George- asked. Metropolitan, 84 Columbia, 62 bid, 65 asked, Eckington, 30 bid. lectric Light Stocks. —Washing- bid, asked Hy " > 4 United States Electric Light, 124% bid, 125% asked. Insurance Stocks.—Firemen’s, 43 bid. | Franklin, 45 bid. Metropolitan, 70 bid. Cor- i 7% bid. Arii 55 bid, 160 asked. German American, 169 |, 200 asked. National Union, 124% bid. Columbia, 13% bid, 1% asked. Riggs, 7 bid, | 7% asked. People’s, 5% bid, 5% asked. Lin: coln, *8 bid, 8% asked. Commercial, 5 bid, 5% asked. | Title Insurance Stocks.—Real Jstate Title, | 112 bid, 120 asked. Columbia Title, 7 bia. 7% asked. Washington Title, 5 Telephone Stocks.—Penn: nia47 asked. Chesapeake and Potomac, *47% bid, 481g asked. American Graphophone, 3% bid, asked. Pneumatic Gun Carriage, .25 ue 30 asked. = Miscellaneous Stocks.—Washington Mar- ket, 14 bid, 16 asked. Great Fal . 130 bid. town, 300 bid, 3) bid, 90 asked. Belt, 23 bid. bid, 105 asked. Bull Run Panorama, 15 Norfolk and Washington Steamboat, 90 bid. Lincoln Hall, 80 bid. Inter-Ocean Building, 100 asked. *Ex. div. Range of the Thermometer. The following were the readings of the thermometer at the weather bureau today: Sa.m., 49; 2 p.m., 64; maximum, mum, 42.