The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1900-03-02

quite q surprise was caused In the
circuit court room yesterday when
James R. Hlssom. the defendant in the
suit brought against him by his son.
estimated his wealth as less than $685.
900. The suit Is brought for 100000
and other witnesses had considered the
defendant as worth between 100000 and
$4,000. Equally interesting was the
cross-examination of Or. Guthrie, sup
erlntendent Of the Spencer asylum,
from whom Mr.. Hubbard drew forth
some pertinent facts. notably that he
was being paid $500 for his testimony
as an expert, and that he had prepared
questions for the defense. The tastl-
mony In the famous case will likely
conclude to-day, and 1t is good guess
that the argumentswill have been COM
pletad by the middle OF next week.
At the opening Of court, DR., Guthrie
took the witness stand. In reply to
Mr.. Hubbard's questions, he discussed
mondmanIa, but did not give a decided
ansWer as to whether there was such
a word, and he denied saying before
Judge Blizzard that there was no such
word as monomaria. No such class
Of cases was reported on the asylum
record, pointed out Mr.. Hubbard. La
ter, the plaintiffs attorney elected the
information that the witness had pre-
pared tho set Of questions asked him
By Mr.. Howard on Wednesday. and DR..
Guthrie dlsclaImed any lmpronrlety In
tbs, 40 Mr.. Howard had suggested that
hefook up insanity authorities,
Continuing, Mr.. Howard inquired Il
HE witness was not employed 10 give
testimony, and DR.. Guthrie said j. r.
nilsson, gave him $500 to testify as an
expert. he admitted that he had
agreed to testify for S. G. Smith, at
torney for Or, Hlssom, for 800, but that
Mr.. Smith only gave him half Of II, so
the contract was not carried out. DR..
Guthrie claimed that his testimony was
given without regard as to whether Il
favored the plaintiff or defendant.
There was much lInEual sparring he
tween him and Mr.. Hubbard, and the
witness displayed some brllliancy In the
art Of repartee.
AS to an Experts Fees.
You stated that S. G. Smith sent you
$50? Is that so?"
Eyes, sir. Mr.. Smith interviewed me
at Spencer, and l told him that didn't
think could be Of much service to his
side OF the case"
ibid YOU receive one or more sub
poenas?"
I received one each from the plain
tin and defendant"
after being summoned did you have
n conversation with plaintiffs coun-
sel?"
"Yes. was In Wheeling later on
business. and talked with Messrs. Hub
bard and Smith. at the latter's office"
Have Won the letter that accom-
panied Mr.. Smiths draft for $500"
eyes. sir. It's private correspond
eTce. but suppose 1t will have to be
Produced" DR.. Guthrie here produced
the letter, which was offered In evidence
by Mr.. Howard. 1t was dated January
20, 1900. and It stated that there was
enclosed a draft for $50 "the remaln-
der Of the 500. as per agreement" to
be given later A room would be
ready at the Mcclure on his arrival, and
other arrangements were detailed in
the letter.
Previous to this feature. DR.. Guthrie
said he valued his testimony as an In
sanity expert to be worth fee ranging
from 500 to $500. After the letter was
read. the doctor repeated he hadn't
cared to be mixed up In the case on
either side. In his conversation with
Mr. Smith. the latter said the rest az
his fee besides $50 could be arranged
RfterwaFd, He had told plaintiffs coun-
eel to the effect that the more familiar
he became with the facts the more con-
WINGED he was that DR.. Hissum was a
moral degenerate. and the more suspl-
cious that his mentality was impaired.
The witness and Mr.. Smith had dis
Cussed the case frequently, Mr., Smith
said some money had been loft at Spen-
Ger 20 hx the officials Of the Institution
whether this was done hy the defend
ant or the other side, DR.. Guthrie didn't
specify Just then.
A Passnge-at-Arms.
Then Mr.. Hubbard took the witness
in hand as to the interview with him
and Mr.. Smith. AMI passage-at-arms
Followed that was decidedly breezy. DR..