The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-10-29


The taking Of testimony in the
Thomas murder case closed yesterday
afternoon about $3.50 o'clock Assistant
County Attorney Putnam opened the
arguments for the prosecution in an
address Of about an hour and ten min
Utes. He was followed by Attorney G.
P. Rhea on behalf o. Mrs Thomas. who
spoke till o'clock. when court adj
iourned until 10 o'clock this morning.
when the arguments viii be resumed
After Mr.. Rhea concludes 0Ir. Hutchin-
son viii follow on behalf CT Mrs
Thomas and County Attorney Van Colt
viii close the case. which may he *
pected to reach the jury late this al
ternoon.
The proceedings commenced yester-
day morning by DR.. Scott. an expert on
insanity. taking the stand tor rur Il =
cross examination. Asked by Mr. Van
Colt If he thought Napoleon Bonaparte
was at all times responsible for his
actions the witness said that ne dId
not
Was he a fit subject for an insane
asylum" asked Mr.. Van Colt,
Not necessarily replied the DOCTOR
Nfr Van Cntt then stated the circum-
Stances at the shooting and asked Wit
ness If he thought a person acting as
Mrs. Thomas had done Vas insane. The
witness said that taking her family his
tory into consideration there was no
doubt in his mind that She VAS men
tally Irresponsible when she Killed her
husband.
DIR. MEACHAM THINKS SHE WAS
INSANE.
DR.. F. a Meacham testified in reply
to questions by Mr.. Hutchinson. that
he believed in heredity, both in mental
and physical matters. Mr.. Hutchinson
then asked the witness: Taking the
family history Of the defendant and all
the circumstances so far as developed
at the trial witness was strongly of the
opinion that she was insane when she
committed the act.
MIR. Van Colt. in cross examination
asked DR. Meacham if it was proved
that Mrs Thomas procured a gun the
night of the shooting; took car TO
The city, entered a house: shot her
husband and afterwards told others OF
what she had done, would he say that
such person was insane? The doctor
replied that he believed there was such
a thing as d double personality.
in case Of a double personality does
the person in question rem mbeF what
She has done?7 asked Mr.. Van Colt.
mo, | don't think that recollection
goes with double personality" was the
reuiy-
This closed the case for the defense.
In rebustaI ". II. Sammens was
called. The witness said he MAS a SOL
Liier stationed at Fort Douglas. On
June &. the day of The shooting, Mrs.
Thomas sent for witness and asked him
if he knewsf her husband vas in the
1Nai, ,G rNafl HalI 81
McAfee house.
Did she make any threats against
her husband2'
objected TO as not rebuttal and OBJ
lection sustained.
DR. PIKE THINKS SHE WAS NOT
INSANE.
Dr.. W. n. Pike, formerly medical su-
perintendent of the state ms as lum.
examined ny Ny. Van Colt. said that
in the main he agreed with DR.. Scott
and Dr. Meacham as to the effect OF
alcoholism in the parents Upon the chn-
dren. Mr. Van Colt then briefly stated
the circumstances Of the killing to the
Witness and asked if on taking into
consideration the family history and
all the surroundings he considered Mrs
Thomas sane or insane at the time she
killed her husband. The doctor said
he thought she was sane at The time
an insane person might do the things
she had done. hut il vas NOT proba Die
Cross-examined by Mr.. Hutchinson.
the witness said in reply ia a question
that doctors sometimes made mistakes
in their diagnosis. the witness admitted
he was not inrelIible. and might have
made mistake in the case Of Mrs.
Thomas
Mr.. PUTNAM OPENS THE ARGU-
MENTS.
This closed the testimony and Assist
ant County Attorney Putnam for the
prosecution opened the arguments TO
the jury. He began by saying that
there Was in this case a pathetic side
and asked the 1ury not to ALLOW their
SympathieS to warp their Judgment.
The killing was admitted, and The only
points for the Jury to consider was
whether it was justified and whether
the woman was sane or insane when
she committed the act. Counsel argued
there was no justification. and that she
was sufficiently in her right senses to
RnOW what she Was doing when she
killed her husband, and responsible for
her acts. He reviewed the testimony
and asked the jurors TO base their
verdict on the testimony and nothing
else. and called attention 10 the fact
that the burden of proof of insanity
MAS upon the defense Mr. Putnam
spoke Tor an hour and ten minutes,
ana made logical and argumentatiye
address.
ATTORNEY RHEA.
Attorney c. p. Rhea for the defend
ant followed Mr.. Putnam. He ap-
preached the case with considerable
dihidenee. feeling the responsibility,
but felt thrice armed because the cause
of the defendant was Just. The fact
was admitted that the defendant killed
her husband but her guilt or innocence
turned on the pivot Of her sanity. If
she could distinguish between right and
wrong when she sent the bah through
the lung OF Samuel Thomas she is
guilty OF murder II she could not dis
iinguish right and wrong at that mo-
ment she Is not guilty Of murder
Counsel reviewed the testimony re-
garding insanity, and eontended that
ii established beyond reasonable
doubt that Mrs Thomas was insane
and Irresponsible
AR. Rhea had not concluded his ar
eument when court adjourned until 10
O'Clock this morning.
Miscellaneous Court Cuttings.
Chickering & Sons have entered suit
against John r. FauIhs and John Doe