Evening star., 1899-03-17

| that the only inquiry before the jury was
as to whether Mr. Peters was capable of
controlling his business affairs properly. 1t
did not follow that Mr.. Peters was to be
restrained of his liberty, placed in an in
sane asylum or anything of that sort He
| detailed the course followed by Mr. Peters
relatives and business associates when they
heard that he had been acting sngularly at
! Hot Springs and elsewhere, and reviewed
] the testimony before the jury. Deducing
| from the facts brought out in the evidence
| and not denied, Mr.. Hoehling expressed the
opinion that while Mr.. Peters was steadily
| improving in his condition. he was still UNI
able to be safely intruSted with the care
of himself and his estate. He closed by
| quoting legal authorities in support Of his
position.
Mr.. WOrthingtOn's Address.
Mr.. Worthington then addressed the jury
in Mr.. Peters behalf. The jury, he said,
had no right to consider how Mr.. Peters
had spent his money or whether he was of
| unsound mind. 1t was simply to determine
if Mr.. Peters was of such unsound mind
| that he was unable to transact his business.
The United States Supreme Court had decid-
ed that a man could suffer from deliriums
| and be insane and still be legally capable
of attending to his business affairs, making
contracts, wills and so forth.
Mr.. WorthiBgton made the point that
the other side had stated very regretfully
that it was a great mistake to arrest Mr..
Peters and lock him up, he was perfectly
able to take care of himself. If this were
the case 1t would be pertinent for the jury
to decide whether such man was not also
able to take care of his own property. Mr..
Worthington also told the jury to consider
that the persons who brought the inquiry
| into Mr.. Peters, sanity were the only ones
that would benefit by the property II 1t
were taken out of his possession.
He warmed to his subject at this point
and proceeded to select from the testimony
the portions given by Mr.. Peters relatives
ff~xv hnd dGfnr n
ant regarding his conduct previous to going
to Hot Springs, and then showed that no
claim had been made that Mr.. Peters was
insane before he went there. He detailed all
this testimony and then exclaimed:
And all this was done, gentlemen, in the
pame of friendship
Regarding Mr.. Peters conduct at Hot
Springs Mr. Worthington declared he had
been drugged there. Up to February
nothing singular was noticed in his con-
duct. The drug was either given him by
the doctor or some of ths gamblers. The
man Walsh met him February Z.
The doctor swore he had not noticed any
thing unusual in Peters until February IL
Counsel arraigned the friendship for MT.
Peters that felt called upon to assail the
character of Mrs. Peters, whom Peters had
lived with as his wife, and introduced as his
wife to his friends and his relatives.
Mr. Worthington was still speaking Wheh
this report closed.
CrOss-ExaminatiOn Begun.
Attorney ]. NJ. Wilson began the cross
, examination of Mr.. Peters yesterday after
| noon just before The Stars report closed
There were many sallies by the witness in
reply to Mr.. Wilson's questions, which
caused much amusement.
| Commencing his Interrogation Mr. Wilson
examined Mr. Peters as to his career in
the Signal Corps in 1874 and thereabouts.
He asked about trouble which witness was
al tn with named
| Boyd in 1874. Mr.. Peters said it was per-
sonal matter, settled years ago, and, when
asked what the trouble was, returned by
| inquiring if Mr. Wilson was before a mil
| itary board intending to try him by court
martial. He recited his various experiences
| in the Signal Corps, including quarrel
with Gen. (then Capt. A. W. Greeley at
Dennison, Texas, and stated: Il was final
| ly discharged from the corps because /
could not successfully contend with the
elements
Norris Peters Company Affairs.
Examined in reference to the conduct of
| the business of the Norris Peters Company.
Mr. Peters stated that he had never been
! taken into consultation until all plans had
| been arranged and indorsed by counsel.
| DO you refer to me?" inquired Mr.. VIII
son.
Well. Indirectly was the reply.
Witness also stated he had been practi
| cally excluded from the active conduct of
! the business. He had objected to certain
expenses for rent and services. to the arbi-
trary manner of his arrest under the claim
that he was insane and to what he charac-
teriZed a paying salvage to Witnesses
as he said had been done in the present
proceedings.
He averred that he did not believe the
contract entered into between the members
of the Norris Peters Company existed to-
| day in the spirit in which it had been orig
inally made. explaining that when Mr..
Fraser. according to the first contract was
to receive not more than one-third interest
and draw only amount equal to that
drawn by the other members of the firm.
hs was under the agreement now in force
drawing 500 more per month than he did
before, and in excess of the other members.