The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-03-11
IN REBUTTAL.
Continued from Page one)

CONTINUED from Page One)
|
ease back to the measles and tn
mumps. We ought to have some RICH
! defense has put into the evidence sucl
parts of his life as they choose from
his nursery days in an attempt to show
him insane. May 1 not go into othel
portions of his life to show he wal
| sane? ?"
Mr.. Jerome contended that if he wai
not to be allowed to go into matter:
prior to 1903, all evidence relating tC
the defense must be stricken out This
Mr.. Delmas agreed to, but when Mr.
Jerome said this would cause the hypo-
thetical question to be stricken out as
well, he would not give his consent.
A. Justice F'itzgeralUs suggestion
Mr.. Jerome attempted to fix the date
more closely. Mr.. Jerome showed the
witness a legal document and asked him
if it recalled to his mind when he rep
resented TEaw in the Thomas case.
questioning of the witness as to the
Ethel Thomas suit en- the broad ground
that Mr.. Longfellow at the time was
acting as Thaw's counsel.
"Of course" said Mr.. Jerome, IF you
are going to plead professional privi-
lege as a bar connot 90 ahead. But
thought counsel, in the interest of the
truth, might waive"
OCA-
mas. Tin defending a man for his life.
1 have no right CT power to waive any
thing"
Delmas Objects.
Mr.. jerome next asked Mr.. Longfel-
low if he was telephoned to in 1904 by
Evelyn 'rhaw from the office of Abra-
ham Hummel and Mr.. Delmas again
objected.
he asked Mr. Jerome what his pur-
pose was in asking the question.
Ill -
dence,'' said Mr.. Jerome, Ito show
whether or not this witness told her
husband in Paris that she had been
ravished by Stanford White. In Abra-
ham Hummers office we contend she
made statement which contradicted
the fact that she did tell Thaw any
such story. I asked her if she made all
these statements to Hummel, and in the
and she said she did not. Hav-
ing called her attention to contradic-
tory evidence, I have a right under the
law to go into the truth or falsity of her
evidence as to material and reversible
facts
Mr.. Delmas finally withdrew his OBJ
lection to the question as to whether
had ever been telephoned
by Evelyn Nesbit.
The witness said she had telephoned
him several times.
Did any of the conversations relate
to an affidavit?' asked Mr.. Jerome.
MT DelmaS then renewed MS OD1eC-
ton and an argument ensued.
Evidence which is introduced for the
purpose of showing that Mrs. Thaw's
story is untrue is of course not admissi-
ble'' said Mr.. Delmas, but evidence
tending to show that she never told this
story to her husband is clearly admissi-
BILE. But I cannot see that this is any
thing but an effort to controvert the
truth of what she says she told her hus-
band"
Mr. Jerome argued that his question
was purely for the purpose of laying a
ondary testimony to show the contents
Of the affidavit which Mrs. Thaw said
was burned in Hummel's office.
Mrs. Thaw," said Mr.. Jerome, "declar
ed she did not telephone Mr.. Longfellow
from Abraham Hummel's office. want
to find out whether she did or not
Justice Fitzgerald ruled that the wit
ness might answer whether or not these
over the telephone with
Evelyn Nesbit had to do with the affi-
davit-
No Talk of Affidavit.
1.-The did not" said Mr.. Longfel-
low positively.
Mr.. Jerome then showed the wit
ness the Photographic copy of a por-
ton of the Hummel affidavit and an
other document and asked:
You are familiar with the hand
L
Mr.. Delmas demanded to see the
documents and spent some time read
ing them.
Mr.. LongfeIlow said he thought he
could recognize Evelyn Nesbit's hand
writing, though he was not very IA
miliar with it.
did she ever deliver to you,' con-
tinued Mr.. Jerome, "a paper sub
scribed to by her, the contents of
which were the same as the photo
hi y oh
Mr.. Delmas objected.
Did she ever deliver a paper to
you which she had subscribed TOP
asked Mr.. Jerome.
Eyes, but you must understand
am not referring to the paper you
have handed me. have no reference |
to that whatever"
What did you do with the paper ?"
'I handed it to the present counsel |
in the case"
''When?"
In February"
Mr. Jerome here demanded from
Thaw's lawyers the production of the |
paper.
had delivered to counsel !
40 paper similar in any way to the |
one in question.
''I prefer to take the statement of |
The witness said Mr., Jerome. He is |
under OATH
THAT is an unnecessarily insulting !
remark" said Mr.. Delmas. You |
will find out by interrogating the wit
ness that he did not deliver any such
paper to US" continued Mr.. Delmas
did Evelyn Nesbit Thaw ever give |
you a document signed by herself in /
he form of an affidavit?r asked Mr. |
Jerome.
mot to my knowledge. To the best |
IF my knowledge never saw that pa |
per before and know nothing about it,"
aid Mr.. LonGfellow. /
Leblanc Is Recalled
After this Mr.. LongfeIlow was ex- |
FUSED and coroner's physician Timothy |
Leblanc was recalled. He was ex- |