Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1907-03-21

for an objection. He asked Humme
II at the time Of the conversation
with Miss Nesbit he was acting q
her legal adviser and attorney.
Il was acting only for Mr.. Stan
ford white" replied the witness.
"And did you not contemplate som,
action in Miss Nesbits behalfi'
asked Mr.. Delmas.
mo there was no legal action con
templated 50 far a. she was con
cerned."
There was no communication DO
tween the witness and Miss Nesbit
as counsel and client.
II must object" said Mr.. Delmas
TO the question, on the ground thai
II is not proper rebuttal."
Before the court could rule, how
ever, Mr.. Delmas put further ques
tons to the witness which had ref
erence to the payments he received
from Stanford White for legal serv-
Ices. The amount paid for this par.
t.cular item or service, witness said,
was about 500.
Mr.. Delmas renewed his general OBJ
lection.
1T is not rebuttal,' said Mr.. Del
mas, 1T Is also immaterial and IRE
velant and not proper testimony"
Mr.. Jerome proceeded to argue the
points Of law involved.
Mr. Jerome's contention was that
II It could be shown that under oath
Miss Nesbit denied that she told
Thaw the stories about Stanford
White which in this trial she testi-
fled to have narrated to Thaw in
Paris, that fact must have weight
with the jury in deciding whether she
had in truth made that statement, re-
lated In her testimony and which has
been the basis Of theory that the de-
PENDANT Is insane.
1.-THE proposition I make to the
court is very simple" continued Mr..
Jerome. IF Evelyn Nesbit did not
tell Thaw this story In Paris the
reason for his insanity disappears. II
she did not tell the story, the hypeth'
otical question on which the experts
have based their opinion disappears,
l contend that under the law; under
the authorities I have quoted, | have
q right to show that this woman made
the statement outside Of court but
under oath that she did not tell Thaw
would not agree to any such story
as she has told here"
Mr. jerome sat down and Mr.. Del
mas arose. He said that as the hour
Tor the luncheon recess was approach.
Ing and as Mr.. Jerome's argument
necessitated an extended reply, he
would ask that the recess be taken
Immediately 80 that his argument
might not be interrupted.
Mr.. Jerome amended the motion by
lsking that court adjourn for the day.
I am very DESTROYS Of getting through
With this case" said Mr.. Jerome, land
am sure bOtn' AIiF OeE1iaS 'aId 'yUuS
lonor feel the same way. l have dis
,ussed the matter of the hypothetical
question with the eight scientists
With whom am consulting and ! find
hey are not willing to express an |
,pinion on a question which IL only |
summary Of the evidence. l there
ore will be obliged to go into the
ase In full, making a question that
viii require at least an hour to read,
nd have as yet been unable to
nish 1t. / think we could save time
we adjourn now until Thursday
forming in the meantime Mr.. Delmas
nd can probably agree on the word
lg Of the question and thereby save
he time Of the court which would
therwise be taken up by arguments
nd searching through the records.
Ir. Delmas would also have time t.
onsult authorities to reply to my
rgument Of Wednesday.
Unless Mr.. Delmas takes up a
ng time In his cross-examination Of
10 experts; l see no reason why the
Use should not be closed on Friday"
Mr.. Jerome suggested also that the
Iperts might all be sworn at once
hich would necessitAte the reading
the long hypothetical question {
4