The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1907-03-16
THE FAMOUS AFFIDAVIT.
CONTINUED from first page.

what did you do with the original
copy?" asked Mr.. Jerome.
Mr. Delmas objected on the ground
that this had nothing to do with the
case.
The objection was overruled.
81 handed II to Snydecker or Jacob
son. one OF the men in my office. /
don't know which"
"Did these two men subsequently
leave your Office togetherT'
Mr.. Delmas objected. and Mr.. Je-
rome withdrew the question.
"what day was II you handed the
original to the men?" asked Jerome.
Tuesday, Oct %. 1908" answered
Hummel.
when did you next see the origl-
nal?"
"The next day. "Wednesday, oct. %"
AIr. Jerome handed lIummel the
Photographic negatives and copies of
the original affidavit. He said he had
caused the Photographic copy 10 be
made.
Unsuccessful in blocking Hummers
testimony, Attorney Dclmas In cross
examining the witness brought from
his own lips the fact that he had been
convicted In December. 1903. In the
very courtroom In which Thaw Is he
| ing tried on a charge Of conspiracy
lie further admitted that two indlct
ments for subornation OF perjury are
pending against him and that one OF
these indictments charges him with
having caused false affidavit TO DO
made.
Mr.. Jerome protested against the
witness being dragged through hui
initiating details" OF his trial. but JUS
tice Fitzgerald declined to interfere.
Then Mr.. Delmas asked IIummel II
he had not heard the speech made by
District Attorney Jerome when sen
tence was about 10 he imposed. when
| Mr.. Jerome urged the court 20 pass the
| longest and heaviest sentence within
| its power upon Hummel. rs he had
| been menace 10 the community for
| twenty years" Justice Fitzgerald
finally sustained an objection 90 this,
and IIummcl was not compelled 20 an
swcr.
| Mr.. Delmas wanted o. know n Hum
mel had had any more recent business
transactions with the district attorney
and asked II Mr.. Jerome was pressing
the charges against him.
'He certainly is." said the witness,
with spirit
Mr.. Delmas brought out from Hum
mel that he had been dlsbarred from
pracilcing law In 1872 on charges ~
bribIng magistrate. IIummel dcciar'
ed he was restored after two years.
The witness admitted that he was now
under suspension. and u petition for
his dlsbarment II pending.
| The first expert called by Mr.. Jerome
was Dr. william IIlrsch u Cornell uni
versity.
After Dr. TIlrsch had qualified him.
self hy stating what his medical edu.
cation aud experience had been Dis
trict Attorney Jerome asked him 10
give his opinion ON the hypothetical
question which Mr.. Delmas put 10 the
alIcnlst Tor the defense.
WAS the person described In that
question suffering from such mental
arrangement that he did not know the
nature or quality 81 his act or that the
act was wongf' asked the prosecutor.
"IIc certainly was not"
Dr. Hirsch gave the same answer as
60 the longer hypothetical question
framed 10y the district attorney.
"Now. Doctor said Mr.. jerome,
''what l. brain Storm
There l. No such thing ~ n brain
storm known among scientific men.
came the response.
When Dr Charles g. Wagner 81 the
defense wis on the witness stand be-
cited To- Mr.. Jerome ease ~ brain
storm described la recognized text
hook on insanity. Mr. Jerome called
this case 60 Dr. IIirschis attention
Mr. Dclmas objected e. the line Of In
qulry on the ground that II was q
collateral issue. Justice Fitzgerald
overruled the objection. and DR.. Hlrsch
said the case cited was In no way
similar o. the Thaw afair.
1t l. NO more similar" he declared.
ethan ease ~ smallpox resembles q
broken leg"
THAT H. ALL said Mr.. Jerome.
DR. william II. Pritchari Of the New
] York Polytechnic institute followed Dr
IIIr.ch on the stand.
Dr Pritchanl said be was familiar
with the two hypothetical questions
under consideration. aud In Response
o. them he said
In my opinion. the man described
IN the hypothetical questions knew the
nature aud quality ~ hls act and knew
that the act was wrong"
DR. rrltchard was excused without
cross examination. Mr.. Dclmas said
he would not cross examine any Of the
prosecutions experts
Dr. 4. W. Ferris next took the stand
DR., Ferris was on the stand but a
few moments. IN reply ~ the two
hypothetical questions. which be said
he had carefully studied. he gave the
opinion that Thsw knew the nature
and quality of his act aud knew that
the act was wrong.
Mr. Dclmns waved the witness aside
and Mr. Jerome called Dr. A. r. Die
I