Bryan morning eagle. [volume] (Bryan, Tex.) 1898-1909, 1907-03-15
STRIPPED AND WHIPPED
DENOUNCES THE THAwS.
Says Dsfsadant Divssssd His Wife ef
Her Clothing and Beat Woman In
an Effort to Have Her State White
Drussed and Ruined Her.

New York. March A.-Disfrict At
torney Jerome deuoncsd Harry X.
Thaw and wife Wednesday. The pros
ecuting attorney found the opportunity
10 attack Thaw and Evelyn Nesbit In
arguing on the question Of the admis-
sibiiitq OF the testimony which Abra-
ham Hummel. the lawyer. who is un-
der indictment for subornstion OF per
jury In the Dodgc-Msrse divorce case.
has TO offer. II was TO enable Dolphin
NJ. Delmas. leading counsel for the de-
Tense, 70 consult authorities and frame
a reply to Mr.. Jerome, and also to al
low TIE latter an opportunity Of com
pleting the hypothetical question
which he is TO put to his experts that
the early adjournment was ordered.
During his argument the district at
torney took on for the first time
since the case began sustained ora
torical tone. He asserted that Hum
mel would swear Evelyn told him three
after her return from Europe In 1905
that Thaw had beaten her cruelty be-
cause she would not sign papers he
had prepared. falsely accusing White
OF having drugged and betrayed her
Mr.. Jerome contended that she had
told him more: that Thaw seemed bent
on putting White into the penitentia-
ry: that the statement that White had
betrayed her was not true: that Stan
ford White had never harmed her. and
that Thsw was consumed with rage
when sllS refused TO sign and swear
10 the papers containing lies about
Stanford White"
These things were put In the form
Of an affidavit" declared Jerome. "and
that affidavit was subscribed to by
Evelyn Nesbit when she knew what
she was doing. and what the paper
contained.
We want to show that the girl who
told this remarkable story here on
the witness stand swore at another
time. under the solemnity OF an oath.
naked--stripped absolutely naked
she had endured the lashings and beat.
ings OF this defendant rather than
swear to his false statements that
White had drugged and ruined her"
MFR. Jerome argued that the material
part OF the case is whether or not
Evelyn Nesbit told Thaw the story OF
her alleged ruin by Stanford White.
Without that story In evidence. he
declared that the reason for the de-
fendant's alleged insanity disappears
The prosecutor plainly admitted the
importance OF young Mrs. Thaw's tes-
timony. and he said he wished. by
Hummels testimony. to show her own
reputation OF the charges which. on
the witness stand. she renewed against
White.
Thus" he concluded. the jury may
infer from her own statements. after
her return from Europe in 1908. whcth-
er or not she had within two months
OF that time. told this defendant the
things she said she did"
Mr.. Delmas objected 10 Hummel as n
witness on the ground that his test,-
mony hod 10 do with the truth or falls.
ity OF Mrs. Thaw's narrative, and was
not permissible under the rules OF evil
dence.
Mr.. Jerome's contention Is that while
he may not attack the truth or falsity
OF Mrs. Thaw's statement that she was
betrayed by White. he can attack the
truth OF her assertion that she tod
toe story TO Thaw at the time she
says she did.