The Richmond palladium. (Richmond, Ind.) 1906-1907, 1907-02-06

been inherited from some other line
than that stock from which Harry
Kendall Thaw is descended and conse
uuently his insanity is no proof of he
reditary insanity in the defendant
The second ground and the less i'm
portant one of the exclusion of this
particular testimony, was that the
death of the man in an insane asylum
was not proper proof of his insanity
even If that fact were admissible.
The defendant sought, by the ties
timony of DIR. Deemar to establish the
insanity of John Ross, son of Margaret
Cop1ey Ross, who is Mrs. William
Thaw's sister, On the same theory
as above set forth that John Ross's in
sanity, IL he was insane, was not nee
essarily an inheritance from the same
stock from which Harry x. Thaw is
descended, DIR. Deemars testimony
was excluded.
The testimony of another witness
who was called to report converse.
ton he had with Thaw, was excluded
on objection by the district attorney
although the defendants counsel urg-
ed that it was admissible IL inference
could be drawn there from throwing
light on Thaw's mental condition.
The only witness who made any
progress was DR.. ]. NJ. Benjamin the
Thaw family physician of Pittsburg,
who told of Thaw's early nervous tenn
permanent and the illnesses to which
he was subject.
There is chance that the plan of
II Ia
changed tomorrow. Instead of going
ahead with the evidence in support of
insanity, Thaw's lawyers may attempt
to overcome the unquestioned swing
of the case against their client by put
ting on the stand forthwith Evelyn
Nesbit Thaw, to tell the story of her
relations with Stanford White. This
was the story she told Thaw in Lon
don, and which is said to have given
form in his mind to the idea which
eventually led him to kill the archi-
tect.
Alfred Lee Thaw was the fourth wit.
ness of the day, and was called to the
stand at four o'clock. He gave his
age as As years and said that his faith
er and the defendant were first cous.
ms.
Q.-When did your father die?
Am 1885.
Q.-Do you know where your father
was at the time of his death?
Objection by Mr.. Jerome was sus-
tanned by the court.
What is your purpose" asked the
Justice. do you want to show the
mental condition of the father of the
witness?
Yes, SIR
"And he was first cousin of the
father of the defendant" asked the
justice.
1--WE desire to show the mental con.
dition as coming down from the same
ancestral course" said Lawyer Glea-
son.
Mr.. Jerome said that the law was
opposed to using evidence of the kind
where only collateral relatives were
concerned. Mr.. Gleason cited sever
al cases tending to show precedence
for receiving testimony of insanity in
collateral relatives as evidences of
insanity-tainted blood springing from
common ancestor.
I'VE can trace the insanity faint
to a common ancestor in this case"
said Mr.. Gleason.
HAS Harry X. Thaw hereditary in
sanity because he springs from the
same ancestor as this witness?" ask
ed Mr.. Jerome.
Yes Sir: that's it, precisely" said
Mr.. Gleason.
THE insanity of relatives may be
shown" insisted Mr.. Gleason, ''provid
ed foundation has been raised. The
j quote is that evidence of that sort
is admissible, just as soon as testi-
mony on the subject has been offer
ed
AS / understand the objection OF
the district attorney" said Justice
Fitzgerald, sit is not to the offering
of evidence but to the incompetency
OF it. l will admit any competent
evidence on the subject"
Mr.. Gleason cited another case as to
the competency of the testimony of
relatives as to ancestral insanity. Mr..
Jerome said:
Il do not oppose the aducing of
evidence of anybody in lineal des-
ic, VI puiChlS VI VI piotAOlo
or sisters. but when other relatives
are held up as evidence of insanity
in a common ancestor the law clearly
does not allow it. Who is to say from
which of the family branches tho
faint comes?
If you could show by this witness
that his father was of unsound mind
YOU would even then not have proved
that the alleged unsoundness of mind
of the defendant was hereditary. Ey-
idence of this sort if admitted and
later stricken out will carry with it
other evidence. That will take sever
al days to submit. / contend that the
evidence offered here is incompetent.
j infer that what the defense desires
to establish here is that the parent of
this witness died in an asylum. The
mere fact that a person dies in such