Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-02-16

Y . to 4 considerable extent. MI.
Ewing said 1t a his understanding
that Mrs. Hissom was the person. and
that led to the old inquiry OF why she
did not sign the Information. To this
the answer threw no new light on the
situation. Witness was asked as to
whether or not he had any private in
terviews with the Justice, but he could
not remember the facts.
Then a new line was taken up by
Mr.. Hubbard. and the witness was
asked II he had not had introduced in
the lunacy trial the evidence OF one
Belmont, a prisoner at the county jail.
He replied that it was true and that
S. O. BOyce, who was Belmonts lawyer,
told him Of the fact that his client
could testify in the case. So Belmont
was put on the stand.
Q.-And did he not get bail shortly
after that? Al believe he did.
But witness denied that either he or
his client had anything to do with
the bail arrangement.
AS to the apparent erasures and sub
stitutes in the affidavit referred to on
Wednesday, counsel for defense asked:
Q.-After the typewriting had dried
could the erasures have been made and
leave the paper in it's present condi-
ton?
The form of the question was OBJ
jected to and 1t was asked again and
allowed. Mr.. Ewing said the align
ment appeared to be regular and he
certainly had no idea that the changes
were made. except at the time the
affidavit was written. He inspected
the writing with the glass. So did Mr..
Hubbard, who asked why the altera-
lions had not been made with a pen.
The witness said he supposed there
was some consideration of neatness
with the writer. He was then asked
If the affidavit did not contain at first
something in the nature of evidence
which was wanted concealed. Mr.. Ew-
ing said he had no recollection OF such
a thing. He said he habitually made
corrections by rubbing out the line or
word and rewriting in the same place.
His attention was called to the word
''and" written with a lead pencil. He
was asked about another correction
made in lead pencil writing. His at
tention was called to a third correc-
ton and to a fourth, both made with
a lead pencil. In another part a cor
rection was made by inserting the
word mot" in ink. The witness
thought he had written that also.
Then" said Mr.. Hubbard, "you
sometimes forget your habit of making
corrections on the typewriter"
Shortly before noon Harry Nelson
was called by defense, and was on the
stand at the noon adjournment. At
the afternoon session he gave place to
DR.. E. C. Myers, the Hissom family
physician. The Doctor was examined
by Mr.. Howard, and related his having
been called upon by Mr.. J.. r. Hissom
as to his sons condition. the state
ments made to him as to plaintiffs ac-
ton and conduct. and his conclusion
and belief that the plaintiff was in
sane. He related the history of
the case" as related to him by j. R.
Hissom and other members of the fam
lily, and was strongly of the opinion
that the plaintiff was of unsound mind.
The cross-examination following con-
sumed' the entire afternoon, and a re-
cital of a portion of it affords an in
sight into the entire tenor of the Doc
tors evidence.
During the cross-examination Mr..
Schuck asked, following UP previous
question as to the witness knowledge
of the history of the case:
Q.-What part of the history of the
case, as stated by you before on this
examination, was not given to you by
J. R. Hissom? Al have already an
swered that every part of it was dis
cussed by him.
Q.-Then it is true, isn't it, that in
the first instance the whole history was
given you by J. r. Hissom? Al will
state that in the first part of the history,
when it was told to me by Mr.. Hissom,
I suspected insanity. It was given by
him, and afterwards 1t was discussed
generally.
Q.1sn't 1t a fact that you discussed
its whole range, as given to the jury,
with J. R. Hissom before you talked
with the members of the Hissom fam
icy? Ayes; many phases of the case
had been discussed UP TO that time.
Q.-What part of the history, as
gwen to the jury, was not told you in
tae first place by ]. r. Hissom? A.
The letters l have read l considered
Csnterruption). I talked with Mr..
Kissom, and the whole ground was COW
eyed with him, SO I cannot make the
distinction
Q.-In his first talk? Ayes; the
Information was from Mr.. Hissom.
Odd You have all of 1T, or only a
PORT? Al had all of it, except the
Part I referred to and was objected to-.
aAd a part from Mrs. Hissom Gnter,
rlption). Mrs. Hissom called at my
Office once to make some inquiry about
tae caseI think at the time Mr.. His