This is all of Mr. Brodhead’s case so far as what he presents has any relevancy to the point at issue, namely, the identity and ownership of the mare Maria Russell. The pedigree was not made at Woodburn; Mr. Alexander in this case as in many others was simply the victim of the sharper. The only shadow of evidence that has been presented that the pedigree might be true is the evidence of a superannuated negro, Jesse Dillon. For the Woodburn side of the case the reader is referred to Wallace’s Monthly for June, 1883, page 366. In replying to this case I will try to summarize the different considerations as briefly as possible.
First. The case is opened with the assumption that Colonel Shepherd presented the mare Miss Shepherd, by Stockholder, to Captain J. W. Russell and Captain J. A. Holton. We might laugh at this by asking which half he gave to Russell and which half to Holton? This is merely constructing a theory by which the ownership of Russell might be maintained. It is safe to say the mare was given to Holton and to Holton alone, and here is the proof of it. There is a silver cup, now in possession of Mr. Bowen, grandson of J. A. Holton, with this inscription: “J. A. Holton, awarded by Franklyn Agricultural Society, 1836, for filly Maria Russell.” Where is Captain J. W. Russell’s ownership at that date?
Second. When S. D. Bruce was compiling his Stud Book, Captain John W. Russell had his thoroughbred stock entered there. There were several brood mares with their produce under them, but where were Maria Russell and her daughter Sally Russell? They appear as the property of Ben Luckett, when everybody knows he had nothing to do with them. As Captain Russell did not have them entered when he was entering his other stock, I must take it as prima facie evidence that he did not own them at that time.
Third. It is now in imperishable evidence that John W. Russell did not own Maria Russell in 1836, and that he did not own her at the time Bruce was compiling his Stud Book, and now the question is, was there ever a time when he did own her? To answer this question we must turn to Llewellyn Holton, the only man then living who knew and had a right to know all about the history of this mare. His statement is as follows:
“Forks of Elkhorn. May 24, 1883.
“This is to certify that my father, Captain John A. Holton, was, for a number of years, interested with Captain John W. Russell in a number of thoroughbreds, and they raced them in partnership. When they dissolved and divided the stock, I am positively certain that my father retained all the descendants of the Stockholder mare—among them Maria Russell, and all her produce—and I know to my certain knowledge that Captain Russell never owned or had in his possession the mare Maria Russell, or any of her produce; and I further know to my certain knowledge that said mare, Maria Russell, had two good eyes from the time of her foaling until the day of her death. If my father bred a mare to Boston in 1848, I incline to the opinion that it was a bay mare called Limber, for the reason that she, Limber, was very uncertain, having missed several seasons. There is one point, however, that I feel very certain upon, and that is that neither my father nor Captain Russell, during their racing or breeding career, ever owned a Boston filly. As Boston was the most famous horse of his time, it is not at all possible that there could have been a Boston colt or filly on my father’s farm and I not knowing of the fact. I was born in the old homestead the 15th of November, 1820, and have resided either there or adjoining all my life; therefore I had constant opportunity to know all about my father’s stock of horses.
L. Holton.
“I hereby attest that the above is my father’s signature.—J. A. Holton, son of Llewellyn Holton.”
Fourth. With the foregoing clear and decisive statement before us, it is not necessary to determine whether the partnership between Holton and Russell embraced the joint ownership of the racing stock or whether the running colts of the two farms were brought together from year to year, and as a matter of economy and profit, trained and raced as one stable. This latter view of the question seems to be made plain. In his interview with Mr. Holton my commissioner reported as follows: “The horses were always trained by Captain Holton at his private track at the Forks of Elkhorn. That he, Llewellyn Holton, always went after the colts that were on the Russell farm when the training season commenced, and at the close of the racing campaign of the year he always took those back that came from the Russell stock, while those from Captain Holton’s stock were kept on the home farm. When the partnership between Captain Holton and Captain Russell was dissolved, Mr. Llewellyn Holton is positively certain that Captain Russell retained his own stock and Captain Holton his own, the latter consisting of the produce of the Stockholder mare, among them Maria Russell, and all her produce. And he is still more positively certain that neither the mare, Maria Russell, nor any of her produce was ever in the hands of Captain Russell.” At the close of each season the owners, respectively, took their own stock home till the next spring, and after a series of years each owner took his own stock home, and that was the end of the arrangement.
Fifth. In the summer of 1883 I met Mr. John W. Russell, son of Captain Russell, at the house of Mr. R. S. Veech, near Louisville, Kentucky, and we had some conversation on the question of the pedigree of Sally Russell, which had then been in hot controversy for some months. The subject was not a pleasant one to him and he either parried or negatived the few questions I asked. A year or two after this I met him at the Galt House in Louisville, and we had a very pleasant conversation. The controversy about Sally Russell had then subsided, and I asked him if he remembered his father’s thoroughbred mare Mary Churchill. “Oh, yes,” he said, “she was the first horse I ever rode, and my folks were very much afraid I would fall off and get hurt.” I then asked him if Mary Churchill was blind of one eye, and he answered he “could not remember.” My next question was, whether he recollected anything about Maria Russell, and his reply was: “Nothing that is definite.” Then followed the inquiry, “whether there were any traditions in the household going to show that his father ever owned Maria Russell,” and he replied: “There are no traditions that are reliable.” These replies were a most grateful surprise to me, and if I have not given the precise words used I certainly have given the precise meaning.