The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-03-12

trial enferinr on its eighth week to- day, District Attorney Jerome began the real work of the prosecution--tne offering of testimony in rebuttai or the defense built by Thaw's counsel. The < states case in chief which was conclud- cd two hurs after the jury panel had been completed consisted simply or the testimony of eye witnesses to the tragedy
 rome today was Frederick w. Longfel- low. one of the Thaw family attorneys, who was called by the defense some time ago to identify certain letters whic Harry K. Thaw wrote to him in 1903. Today MT. Jerome wanted him to identify letter handed him by Ev- < eiyn The upor her arrival from Eu- rope late in 1903.
 Mir. Longfellow met Mrs. Thaw at the ship which locked October 24. Mrs. Thaw on the witness stand said she could not fix the date or the name of the steamer
 MT Longfellow said he had acted as Thaw's attorney for some years prior to June 25, 1906.
 Did you represent this defendant in the suit of Ethel Thomas against Har- " K. Thawg asked MT. Jerome.
 MT Delmas objected but Justice Fitz- gerald said the witness might answer yes or no.
 My firm handled the case" said MT. Longfellow.
 Were the papers served on this de- fendant?'
 Again MT. Delmas objected, and Dis trict Attorney Jerome began to argue the point
 Black as stanford White.
 He said the contention Is that Thaw's g mind was unseated by his wife's revel- ation by what Stanford White had done to her and to other young women.
 Tt has been said that alleged acts of preversion by Stanford White added to the fury of his mental unbalance. I want to show that he knew all about such things--that they were set forth In the complaint In this suit by Ethel Thomas. the papers of which were serv- ed upon him
 Mrs Evelyn Thaw had testified that she had been shown a copy of Ethel Thomas affidavit by Abraham Hum mel, who said the case had been drop ped by the character of the complaint. MT. Delmas replying to the district attorneys argument quoted at some leng.Ai from MT. Jerome's statement at the beginning of the trIal when Evelyn Thaw was on the witness stand that her testimony was permisstable only sas showing Thaw's state of mind and that he would not be allowed to con- ktradict it.
 t'We told him" said MT. nspvrMs. i've
 
 ing the truth of the wife's story
 Now you do object?' snapped Mir. Jerome.
 .'Yes, because you would not accept our offer to waive our right when the story begansfsretorted Mir. Delmas.
 Mir Jerome declared that MT. Dell mas arguments did not cover the point at issue. It,was the effect of Evelyn Nesbit's stery on Thaw's mind he was attempting to contradict.
 T am not trying to show that Ethel Thomas aeeasation's were true" said Mir Jerome. That would be collat- Heral fact. Anyway this poor girl Is now dead--''
 Mir Delnas Eobjected to The reference to the Thomas girl as ''poor girF' and the statement that she is now dead.
 Mrs. Thaw herself tessiffec that she is dead" said Mir. Jerome, who with drew the adjective poor
 Mir. Jerome said more than two years before Evelyn Nesbit told Thaw the story which Is said to have unbalanced his mind, he knew all the evil praeti- s@ces of men in New York.
 Bed Post Incident.
 Mrs. Thaw herself says she was told the story of Thaw tieing young woman to a bed post and beating her.
 That Is the story Of Ethel Thomas" declared the district attorney.
 MT. Delmas arose to protest. 'T must seriously object to the learned district attorney testifying in this case ! and I beseech him not to continue to give the jury as facts his understand ing of the points at issue," said MT. ! Delmas.
 Justice Fitzgerald instructed the jury to be guided only by the sworn testimony of witnesses and added that he was prepared to ruIe-the question repeated--as to whether or not the pa- pers in the Ethel Thomas case were served upon Thaw.
 Object sustained" ruled the court
 Did there come into your possession at any time letters written by this de- [ fendant to Ethel Thomas?" asked MT. I Jerome.
 Mir. Delmas objected to the ground that such letters must have been writ ten prior to 1903 and therefore had nothing to dc with the sanity or insan- tty of the defendant. ' Why your honor" said MT. Jerome. "The defense. has traced this mans s disease back to the measles and the ! humps. We ought to have some right ! to show his condition down te 1903. The defense chose from his nursery days in an attempt to show him in sane. May I not go into other DOT tions of his life to show he was sane"
 Mir. Jerome contended that if he was not to be allowed to go into mat ters prior to 1903, all evidence relat- ing to matters before that time intro- duced by he defense must be stricken 4 out. This Mir. Delmas agreed to, but when Mir. Jerome said this would cause the hypothetical question to be stricken out as we'll, he withdrew his consent.
 At Justice Fitzgera1d's suggestion, Mir. Jerome attempted to fix the date more closely. Mir Jerome showed the witness a legal document and asked him if 1t refreshed his mind as to when he represented Thaw in the Delmas case. MT. Delmas here obiec- ted to further questioning of the witness as the Ethel Thomas suit on the broad ground that MT. Longfellow at the time was acting as Thaws coun- sel.
 "of course" said MT Jerome, If you are going to plead professional privilege as bar. cannot go ahead. But I thought counsel, in the interest of the truth, might waive--7
 No Right to Waive.
 Your honor" interrupted Mir. Del ,mas. fin defending a man for his life I have no right or power to waive anything"
 MT. Jerome asked MT. 4ongfellow If he was telephoned to in 1904 by Evelyn Thaw from the office of Abra- ham 1T. Hummel, and MT. Delmas Aagain objected. He asked Mir Je- 4rome what his purpose was Tn asking