New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-03-14
FIGHT OVER HUMlIEL.
Continued from first page.

substance
SO FAR as the physical facts-the description OF II
are concerned, but do claim tina. THIS De
PENDANT should not be held responsible in the law
because when lie committed that act he was eA-
cusable under the law Of this state; because when
unsoundness OF mind that he did not know the
nature a1d quality Of the act he was GohE, Tae
against the law of the land and peril to the olsi
Now. in maintaining that contention Of confession
and avoidance, that contention of eXcusabie homi-
eide they put Evelyn Nesbit Thaw on the stano
and put other witnesses the stand, and they
produced writings and their whole contention dur
case have been that this defendants mind was SO
it became unbalanced. and an insanity was induced
which resulted in the killing of stanford w hte.
with Miss Nesbitt and asked her il she wolSd
marry him and asked II she didn't love nm anu
ana as she , HeIe b ~ stTairht in the eve aud
then very gently said lis it because of Stanford
White" and then urged her 10 tel MN anoGu II;
being. when a mere child sixteen and hall years
old or whereabouts taken by this man White WHO
drugged her. and while she was insehsIse toi ron
these drugs. maltreated her; that she went on ang
TOD MN OF suosS49ete , o,ipg mon him
from this woman 10 whom he paying honorable
GGr a whom %lo he loved and desired make his
wife. that that fearful picture being presented 20
his mind they sat there that night IN ldtls'
unhinsed his reason.
Mr. Jeromes tones had gradually increased in
vehemence and carnestuess. His eyes flashed.
his jaw was firmly set and his hands we're
clinched He fairly hurled the following SEN
fences at the court;
Now on that question OF whether or not his mind
was unhinged by these revelations. whether or not
these revelations ever were made TO him is surely
important It is not collateral. II goes to the
If this jury believes that on that night in June;
story Of wrong and outrage. II they believe That
the facts were communicated to Thaw that night
Weigh Ias ~ srousl IN etermininE the question q"
II. on the other hand can show that Mrs Thaw
did not tell-that Evelyn Nesbit. as she then was
did not te-Thaw IN Paris IN 1898 that White n aaG
drugged her. and then inaltredted her' II ! can
show to the jury that there is grave reason 10
that sut9ect VIII not that ne a TOT ,t a.
seriously 20 weigh when they retire toT their ma.
elaboration in determining whether this man was
II I can show that Evelyn Nesbit Thaw under
the solemn!ty Of an oath swore absolutely tha{
she denied to Thaw thar she had been drugged
md naltreated by Stanford White. that Thaw tried
10 induce her 10 swear 10 papers setting forth
those very facts. that she had been drugged and
that subject: that she repealed them and that
sanfaTd SO wife f al" that he acav bes s this girl
actually beat her with whip 10 induce her to sign
WHAT he desrs3 her 70 svreat 70 was not trve and
that leaving Thaw iu Paris and arriving here on
says in his recollection on the 2ih day Of October
1908, misunderstanding here in the afternoon she
who had made this sublime remuneration. if the
facts are true-and characiNrize II as sublime
IN no spirit OF sarcasm. sir or insiucery, because
]
tory or literature that exceeds in submit. the
sacrifices she made in her rejection Of Thaw in
morninr the 97th da Of [cTnb T qoo on
FOUND IN the ofce OF Mr. HHmmei With f Tie m maS
who she on the stand here has had dragged
ing her with wine and taking advantage OF her.
and that then and there she said to Mr. Hummei
He beat me when was in Europe: ne dashed me
with whip; he did it to make me swear to a
pn9 So t his W an6 IN the
10 do it. because it was not so; Stanford White aid
never touched me- ""''s
Mr.. Jerome hesltated for an instant AT this
point. but his vehemence did not leave him
when he continued. Instead. with all the i'm
pressiveness he could command. he emphasized
every point he made. The prisoner made a
strong effort to control himself and plainly
showed his nervousness. glanced apprehensiveIy
AT his counsel. He leaned on his hands and
listened with great concern. Mr.. Jerome went
to say:
And if can go further and show that that was
embodied subsequently to these conversations IN a
written document that she signed and swore to-
teligent jury it will go very far with then, in de-
terInining the question at issue whether not
Paris in June. 1895. that Stanford White NAL
She has sworn here that she did It, Whether she
did or did not Is not collateral issue affecting
Importance in determining whether or not his
mans mlnd was swept from its moorngs And If
ments on that matera! fact. because if it is not
ord II matertality Is shown because there was en-
bodied in Mr. Delmas's own hypothetical question
put TO his experts The fact that she did reveal these
things. and II IS one of the things on which Wag-
neT and Evans have based their sworn opinion that
TINS defendant was Of unsound mind when he
and line of this case from start 10 finish eycTv
statement. objection. answer and interrogatorv OF
counsel Gr,s Whether she did tell this 70 Thaw in
IdrlS IL u WaleTlai Iact, and II | can show that
she herself not only said that she didn't do il
under the circumstances have narrated and later
on swore 10 paper. the contents of which she well
knew. that Stanford White had never wroneed her
in any way. and that Thaw endeavored to have
her swear to papers saying that he did in order IN
put him in the penentiary. do you not think that
these facts will have any weight with the fury
properly in determining whether or not Evelyn
Nesbit did say this to Thaw i'm Paris or not
There is the cruX of the case as 1t appears in
evidence. and the question becomes one Of what
the law says on this subject of Introducing CON
trary statements OF a witness
After this the District Attorney described the
law and cited number Of authorities to sup
port his contention that the affidavit should be
allowed in evidence
At the end of Mr.. Jerome's argument Mr.
Delmas asked for an adjournment in order 10 |
study the citations given, and. after Mr. Jerome |
had asked for an adjournment for the remain
der Of the day the court allowed his request
The defence. il safely be said is much
disturbed at the turn affairs have taken since
the Introduction OF Mr.. Smiths testimony A
hurried conference called yesterday af-
ternoon, at which all OF the counsel were pres
ent' and the possibility OF having the evidence |
OF Mr.. Smith stricken from the records was
discussed. The prosecution it is understood |
holds that there is no power in law for such |
action.
1af iN-fsa, Ia