The Washington times., 1907-03-11

| ellege that November q. 1903. she had
/ said IN Abraham HummeFs office thus
| and 80. all OF which in contradiction of
! what she said she had told the defend
ant In Paris"
BY Dtlmos: II am at n loss to under
| stand show the questions addressed to
the witness tend 20 show that she did
not tell this story TO this defendant.
! All that his wife testified to was that
/ she had told her husband that she had
I been 10 HummeIs Office and had there
| been questioned and that she was asked
10 sign a paper. which paper, or a
similatiOn OF 4. was subsequently,
/ burned In her presence. And nothing
/ That the district attorney has been ask
ing this witness can tend TO show that I
she did did not tel that story That $
the point.
The question was re-rcad after the
, objection was withdrawn.
Did YOU receive a telephone mes !
sage from her I'm 1902
Al don't remember.
On 1893
Al may have received several.
Odd any OF them refer to the
Delmas objected 20 any conversation
! between Mr.. BGngfellow and Mrs. Thaw.
BY the court: Read the question
again"
The question. did any Of them relate
TO the affidavit" was again read
Jerome's Efforts Determined.
BY the court: IF it is in evidence /
that paper was destroyed In the office
of Howe & Hummel--"
BY Jerome: I'VE want to show that
that is not true. We want TO show that
the paper which she testified to having
burned in a jardiniere in Mr. HummeIs
office was. in reality. delivered 10 her
fell Low
Before I can start in and offer my
secondary evidence. | must show that
IL Is secondary. / want TO show that
the paper, the original Is in the posses
sion of the defense No power can
compel them 10 produce IL. Therefore
the secondary evidence OF the anidaVlt
Jerome's statement caused a big sur
prise.
BY DeImas:
..Do Won nropose 10 esta blish the loss !
OF a document by hesrsay evidence
Bv the court. The only thing in my
mind is what is the use Of Establishing
the loss at all Of a paper Which might
not even he admissible
The question was again read,
Odd any OF the conversations reier
TO the affldavitZ e-,,-
Allowed 10 answer Mr.. bongiello" !
shook his head and said: No
Jerome then handed the witness the
/ carbon COPY OF the Hummel aftladNlt.
exhibit 20 and the Photographic copy VI
! the signature 10 the paper
Familiar With Evelyn's Writing.
o.-You are familiar with the hand
! writing Of Evelyn Nesbit?
| Mr. Delnas took the copies OF the afti-
davit and the reproduction and proceed
/ ed to carefully read them. II was the
first opportunity Thaw's senior counsel
/ had to examine the all-important docu-
ment and he went over II at great
! length. -,
| LongfellOw answered:
II should expect to be able to recog-
! niZe her handwriting.
! Odd she ever deliver 10 You
! paper subscribed by her, the contents
! OF which
| Objected 10 by Delmas.
! Jerome said. Il am trying 70 iraCs u;
| Was IL copy; was II an original!
! am trying 10 ascertain TINS
! .,That cannot be done until it has been
| ascer .ained what has been done Win
! Jerome hen reframed his question
! Odd @he. subsequent 10 OcSooSF'
1853. ever icllver paper 10 yoh'
! Ayes.
! O-Whenr
/ A-T'nderstand that / do not REFER 10
the copy OF the affidavit you gave me.
! She gave me a paper about NoNenhpeI'
20 Odd tfat paper purport to be an
! Affidavit
| 0--What did you do with that paper?
/ Al handed ii TO one OF the attorneys ..
| 0'- -To ,'' ~. best Of nv recollection it
was some time during the summer
Jerome asked Lawyer H3rtridse 20
produce the paper In accoI ustllCe WIZ
| ~ subDoena served several days ago,
calling for all the material MIS- Ina"
I had given Mr.. I.Dngt CHOW
Delmas Resents Remark.
Mr. DeImas said that the affidavit IN
question had never been handed to any
of the lawyers for the defense
DO YOU wish to g on the STAND ana
make such a statement asked jerome
! This IS a wholly unnecessary and in
sulting way Of treating my answer
| exclaimed Delinas-
| ASK your witness II you want 20 earn
what became OF that paper, declared (
Question by Jerome:
! Q-Did Evelyn Nesbit ever give YOU
/ an affidavit?
| In my life have ] seen an AFFIDAVIT
| similar TO the one YOU have handed me.
/ Thaw. turning to reporter sala:
| Il had never heard OF the existence
~ such an affidavit until after June %,
Coroner's Physician Called.
! Coroner's Physician Dr. timothy lie
| hane. who performed the autopsy on
! the body Of Stanford hite, followed
/ Attorney LOngfellow-
! Assistant District Attorney Garvan
! began 10 question the witness, but
/ stopped short when he ran up against
an objection by Delmas. Thaw's coun-
/ sci raised the point that the direct
! exan1iDatfon OF DR. Leblanc covered all
| the Information that witness had.
/ Justice Fitzgerald, however, allowed
| the district attorney to proceed lie
| asked one question. and then gave up
| I'm despair. ,,.,- .