silence fell over the room, every spectator, from the judge on the bench
to the sheriff, being eager to catch every syllable of the recital. But
as in duty bound to a client, the attorney for the defendant, a young
man who had come from San Antonio to conduct the case, opened a sharp
cross-questioning. As the examination proceeded, an altercation between
the attorneys was prevented only by the presence of the sheriff and
deputies. Before the inquiry progressed, the attorney for the plaintiff
apologized to the court, pleading extenuating circumstances in the
offense offered to his client. Under his teachings, he informed the
court, the purity of womanhood was above suspicion, and no man who
wished to be acknowledged as a gentleman among his equals would impugn
or question the statement of a lady. The witness on the stand was more
to him than an ordinary client, as her father and himself had been young
men together, had volunteered under the same flag, his friend offering
up his life in its defense, and he spared to carry home the news of an
unmarked grave on a Southern battle-field. It was a privilege to him to
offer his assistance and counsel to-day to a daughter of an old comrade,
and any one who had the temerity to offer an affront to this witness
would be held to a personal account for his conduct.

The first day was consumed in taking testimony. The defense introduced
much evidence in rebuttal. Without regard to the truth or their oaths, a
line of witnesses were introduced who contradicted every essential point
of the plaintiff's case. When the credibility of their testimony was
attacked, they sought refuge in the technicalities of the law, and were
supported by rulings of the presiding judge. When Oxenford took the
stand in his own behalf, there were not a dozen persons present who
believed the perjured statements which fell from his lips. Yet when his
testimony was subjected to a rigid cross-questioning, every attempt to
reach the truth precipitated a controversy between attorneys as
bitter as it was personal. That the defendant at the bar had escaped
prosecution for swindling the government out of large sums of money for
a mail service never performed was well known to every one present,
including the judge, yet he was allowed to testify against the character
of a woman pure as a child, while his own past was protected from
exposure by rulings from the bench.

When the evidence was all in, court adjourned until