The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-02-20

+
During this time did you ever pose
for an artist in the nude?"
Ever have any casts made in the
| nude?'
No"
did you not in the spring of 1901,
have such cast nader
DO you know Mr.. Wells. a sculp-
Ever hear of him?"
Never"
How long did you know Mr.. Gar
land?"
When did your acquaintance with
him cease.
when met Stanford White
isn't it true that Mr.. Garland be-
came very annoying when you lived at
certain apartment house ~
isn't it true that his annoyances
phone girl to refuse to send up his
card?"
st never heard of it."
Did your mother meet you every
evening at the theater?"
came"
Did you ever go to Rectors. Burns.
or Jacks to supper?"
IT remember going once with mama
and another LADY,
Did your brother Howard ever go
to the theater for you?''
II think he did once when mama
was sick"
Did you go home with him %
Yes
You know your brothers writings"
Yes
"Is this his signature ?"
Mr.. Jerome showed the witness
document concealing all but the bot
tom of the last page.
yes. 1 think 1t is his signature" re-
piled Mrs Thaw
At this point the court took the
luncheon recess.
Afternoon Session.
New York, Feb 2o.-Mrs Evelyn
Thaw resumed the stand after recess.
Mr. Delmas allowed II checks en-
dorsed by Evelyn Nesbit and her mother
to go in evidence.
Mrs. Thaw testified that the checks
produced in evidence represented money
furnished by Stanford White.
Their Lives Threatened.
New York. Feb. 2o.-Justice Fitzger-
aid, who is presiding at the Thaw trial,
received a threatening letter yesterday;
1t was sent from ST. Louis and accused
the judge of siding with Jerome agains!
Thaw. The writer threatened to XIII
Justice Fitzgerald and District Attorney
Jerome # Thaw is convicted.
That District Attorney Jerome mas oe
cided to close the cross-exam1natlon OF
Evelyn Nesbit Thaw has ALREADY de
yeloped and there is little doubt that
most of today's session of the ThaW
trial will be taken up with the cross
examination. ruling made late yes
terday afternoon just before court au-
journed may have a very FAR reaching
effect in the case. 1t has been helo an
along that under the law it is lmma-
terial whether or not this story Whlcn
EVELYN Nesbit Thaw told her HUSBAND
was true. If Harry Thaw believed II
was the recital aided in unhing1ng MS
mind. that was enough. II mas mere
would not be able to go into the truth
or falsity of the statements wnlcn MIS-
Evelyn Thaw stated on the stand she
told her husband.
Yesterday socn after beginning the
cross examination Mr.. Jerome asked
young Mrs. Thaw if what she told ner
husband regarding her associations with
Stanford White was, true. There was
an argument over the admissibility OF
the question which ended IN Justice
Fitzgerald admitting the question
holding that it was permissible as go
ing to show the credibility of the wit
ness. The great question now is now
far will this throw down the bars anu
allow the district attorney to introduce
evidence on rebuttal for the purpose
of showing that the story was not true
The point is almost a new one ana
there is no one who can say what the
result of this ruling will be. If MI
Jerome attempts to take up the state
ments in detail and ask as to their
truth. there will be many strenuous oD-
terpretation of the law Will depend
whether the entire matter OF the re,
lations of Evelyn Nesbit Thaw ana
Stanford White will be gone into. There
seems little doubt if the court will allow
it, that Mr.. Jerome will show that
many of the statements young MIS-
Thaw has testified she made to her
husband are not true: If he is able to
show this it will, of course, make no
difference in the main fact of the case
The law that the truth or falsity OF the
holds
good. The only effect of proof that
the story was untrue, If it can be pro
duced will be to-, in a measure, dis
credit Mrs. Thaw's veracity and per-
haps rob her of some of the sympathy
she has enlisted by her pitiful story.
That the district attorney believes
that he can prove some OF the state
ments are not true or at least thai
Mrs Thaw is mistaken in them there
can be no doubt. The courts ruling Will
probably allow him to go into these
various incidents at any length he may
please with Mrs. Thaw. The whole
question is whether that ruling is broad
enough to allow him to put other wit
nesses on the stand in an effort to con-
trovert these facts as they now appear
on the record. 1t is evident that JUS
tice Fitzgerald has fully informed him
self on the law covering these points as
his ruling yesterday was made with
out hesitation and after little argument.
Ever since the trial began 1t has been
evident this question would have to be
come it was decided with speed that
was almost startling.
How much time Mr.. Jerome will re-
ouire in the cross-examination of the
defendants wife. it is of course, i'm
possible to say. The defense will then,
it is understood, call at least half
dozen more witnesses. whose testimony
will require proba bly, two or three days.
Mr. Jerome has rot yet cross-examined
either DR.. Britton, DR.. Evans or DR..
Charles G. Wagner the two alfenists.
Who have been on the stand for the |