Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-02-02

who the parties we're Es was very boisterous
at times, using very profane language. He
attended 20 his business regularly. He had no
order slate or box, and customers would leave
their orders with witness. Schneider always
thanked witness very politely for receiving the
orders. Wi tness had read Of the trial, but did
not know the family. Mr.. Schneider's brother
called on witness with Mr.. Hoehling last even
ing.
REV. W u. rARsox.
The Rev. ". E. Parson, pastor Of the Church
OF the Reformation. Was next sworn. and sAid he
bad known the prisoner and his family for the
past thirteen years He had seen the prisoner
a number Of times in jail. He called TO see him
several times previous 10 his conviction and more
often afterwsrd. Previous 10 his conviction
Schneider's mind Was flled with the shooting
and be would talk Of nothing else. He visited
the prisoner ss his spiritual adviser After his
conviction he endeavored TO arouse the prisoner
TO realization of his condition, but with no
result He would not talk connectedly. No
matter what question witness put to him
be could get nothing from him in reply bat
stories OF poisoned food, haunting OF him by
imaginary persons. He never got but one IN
telligent answer. and that was In reply 20 an
inquiry as to when his mother had last called.
He never particularized the persons who be
said were after him. always referring 70 them
as "they." He complained that they made
such noises that he could not sleep. Re COM
planned Of acid being thrown on him. and said
be was inventing an electrical instrument
which would remove the poison from his blood.
Witness could not get him to read. lie COM
planned that his brothers were set against him.
There were marked ply steal and mental changes
as time progressed. gradual and increasing de-
cav. When he FIRST visited him he was alert and
fully realized his position. Witness did not
believe that the prisoner truly realized his
present position He wss not, of course an
expert and his knowledge of the prisoner .
earlier history. together with his own personal
observation, would color his answer as to
whether he was or was not now insane.
AN osyEorroN RI THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
The district attorney Directing to an answer
based on hearsay evidence, the court sustained
the objection.
Continuing, Mr.. Parsons said he could not get
| Schneider TO look him in the eye, and could NOT
prevent him from constantly reverting to the
stories OF poisoned food and imaginary persons.
To the district attorney Mr.. Parsons said the
prisoners family had attended witness church
while they lived in that section Of the city and
that the prisoner had regularly attended SUM-
| day school. After the family moved he saw
little O; them. He met the prisoner often
enough to keep up the acquaintance. He first
| visited Schneider about a month after the
shooting. The prisoner rehesrsed his rersioe
| OF the shooting, which was substantially as told
| by him on the witness stand at the trial.
L
| call upon him during the trial.
REFERENCE TO THE TRIAL.
District at.orney-Doctcr, did You gathe,
from what he said that he expected an &C
quittal?
The witness-I prefer not to answer ths
question, as it might be a confidential comm
| nication.
The court said that while IL might not be
privileged communication. it merely called fol
the impression of the witness.
Mr.. Wilson-May it please the court, we ar,
perfectly willing that the utmost freedom as 3,
questions should be allowed. We wish th,
| fullest inquiry TO be made.
Mr.. Parsons then said that Schneider did no
refer to the outcome of the trial, referring onl,
to what had happened He expressed sorrow
at the death of his wife and said that he couit
not understand how she could have sworr
| falsely against him. His version of the shoot
ing was in the nature OF long excuse for tn
killing. His first visit TO Schneider after th
verdict was some time previous 10 Septembe
IS last, but witness could not give the exac
date. He failed or refused TO recognize wit
ness. The visit lasted about fifteen minute
and its nature was substantially that Of all sub
sequept interviews.
Without concluding the cross-examination o
Mr.. Parsons the court at 1895 took a reces
until l:l5