Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-06-20
Physicians Testify in the
Shaffer Trial.
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
QUESTION OF SANITY OF DEFEND
ANT DISCUSSED.
Nearly All Witnesses Heard-Question
of Prayers to Be Decided
This Afternoon.


Augustus L. Shaffer on trial for the muir
der of his wife, Catherine Ivey Shaffer
WAS practically fnshed today Tomorrow
il is expected the government VIII call one
or two witnesses who could not be found
today, to answer certain questions OF mo-
ment to the prosecution. but to all intents
and purposes the case was closed today
and late this afternoon the counsel began
presentation of their prayers. The tesu-
mony offered today in rebuttal OF the
plea of insanity. which the defense Will
offer Most of the witness IS examined our
ing the morning were persons who nave
been associated with Shaffer during the
mast five or SIX years. all of whom declared
they had never had reason to doubt the
soundness of the defendants reasoning
lowers.
This afternoon a number of insanity ex-
perts. including DR.. Smith f. Jeleffe of
New York and DR.. William A. White, SUI
perinteudent of the Government Hospitai
for the Insane were heard. The most i'm
portant witness of the day was DR.. ID. n.
Shute the Jail physician. but part of his
testimony was ruled out on oDlection ny MI.
Davis for the defense. Mr.. Wilton J. Lam,
bert of counsel for the defense was called
out of town on important business and was
not in court today. The defendant pre-
served his usual stated demeanor through
out the day sitting behind his counsel with
his head bowed never speaking or turning
to the right or left. Close to him sat his
twelve-year-old son. Willie Shaffer. and
near the boy was the defendants aged
mother vino watched the proceedings
closely.
The Testimony Begun.
Mr. John o. Knox the first witness
to take the stand this morning for the re-
buttal testimony. Mr.. Knox was recalled at
the instance of the government to testify
as to ShaferS sanity. Mr.. Knox said the
defendant had been in his employ and had
never shown any evidence of insanity, as
far the witness could determine.
Testimony of the same character was
given by John F. Plunket. who had worked
with Shaffer for several years for local
transport company. Mrs. Nj. 7. Spauiding,
Edward b. Campbell and several other wit
nesses employed at various times with The
defendant
The first diversion in the trial was occa-
stoned by A slight passage at arms between
counsel during the REORGANIZATION of Miss
Agnes lvey, the sister of Mrs. Shaffer.
The witness was called to identify GER
tain letters introduced by the defense as
letters to the defendant from his wife Miss
Ivey failed to identify the first letter
being in her sisters handwriting and AS
sistant District Attorney Keigwin was
about to pass the letter to the jury. when
Mr. Davis interposed objection, re-
questing that the letters be passed to the
jury at the conclusion of the examination,
they We're to be identified one at time
Mr.. Keigwin said he was willing to submit
the letters then or at any time, and Justice
Wright ruled they could go to the jury one
at time.
After the first letter had been placed in
the hands of the jury the government was
about to proceed with the examination of
the next, when the defense again interposed
an objection to the examination of the wit
ness while the jury any member thereof
was engaged in the examination OF the
letters letter.
MIR. Keigwin said he was willing to con-
10 y,,p ati i'm
should be agreed upon. Mr.. Davis OF the
defense retorted that he had observed this
inclination on the part of the government
throughout the hearing of the case.
II do not want any more cross-table talk
between counsel" Justice Wright inter-
posed, sharply.
The examination of the letters was then
proceeded with. the letters being passed to
the Jury one ut time. and the questioning
of the witness being discontinued during the
time the jury held the letters. Miss lVey
allied To identify several of the letters.
The examination of the letters consumed
considerable time, as there were eight or
ten In the bundle placed in evidence. and
each letter was examined infinitely by the
jury.
Sanity Not Doubted.
Mrs. Sage. another sister of Mrs. Shaffer.
was recalled. and testified as to the letters
In answer to question she stated that she
had no reason to doubt the soundness of
mind of the defendant Mrs Ivey. the
mother OF the dead woman. gave the same
kind of testimony. Mrs. Annie Z. Brown.
at whose house Mrs Shaffer lived after her
divorce. was called by the government but
her testimony was rejected on the srouhu
that IL was not rebuttal
The most important witness for the gov
eminent was DR.. ID. X Shute. physician TO
the TAIL DIR. Shute stated that Shafrer was
brought to the Jail while he CDr. Shute)
was on leave of absence. When he return
ed to the jail, Dr. Shute stated. he visited
h h ctr N he
The defendant told the witness of his
drinking prior to the time of the crime.
and the witness declared, appeared to he
in normal mental condition. A snort time
after this. and continuing. the witness SAID.
several weeks Shaffer assumed an attitude
OF dementia which the witness believed 10
be simulated entirely; because, after sew
eral weeks. Shaffer suddenly stopped or
terminated his attempts To appear dement,
ed and acted in normal condition
Mr.. Davis objected to the testimony OF
DIR. Shute on the ground that this testl-
mony was not rebuttal. and after much
argument the. court ruled in favor of the
defense. and the witness was excused Al
this juncture the noon recess was taken
Examination of DIR. Shute.
The examination of DR.. Shute was con-
tinued this afternoon. The examination was
greatly prolonged through the argument of
counsel as to the admission of the tesd-
mony DIR. Shute's testimony was ruled to
be out of the line of rebuttal testimony.
Justice Wright took the witness in hand
and after asking two or three questions
sustained the objection. DIR. Smith T..
Jelleffe of New York was then called to
the stand. The defense waived the question
OF the witness qualifications. but objected
to the questions asked by the government
on the ground that the insanity claimed by
them caused by conditions which did
not exist at the time of an examination
made by DIR. Jellefre In November last.
The court asked the witness III he be-
lieved from his examination he could give
an opinion as to the defendants condition
on the day of the crime, three months be-
fore. The witness gave an answer in the
affirmative His testimony was admitted
as far II related to the exact facts on
the date of the examination. DIR. Jelleffe
described the physical and mental condition
of Shafrcr when he saw him in jail In No
vcmber
Justice Wright ruled. however that the
question to the opinion OF witness as to
the sanity insanity OF the defendant
was not competent. Objection was made by
counsel for the defense to all questions with