Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-02-09
One Was Evelyn's Will.

Thaw's marriage In Pittsburg.
Miss Pierce identified her signature and
said on cross-examination that she did no,
know whether all the matter in the wills
her name. She was simply asked to wit
ness the signatures Of Harry Kendall Thaw
and Evelyn Nesbtt Thaw. and did SO.
And this reference to Stanford White
at the time you signed 1t or not?' said
Mr.. Jerome.
NO. sir"
Mr.. Jerome declared the wills had many
interlineations. additions, etc, In various
handwritings.
He. thought all these changes should be
proved before the papers were received in
evidence.
Justice Fitzgerald upheld the objection
and ruled the wills out. The defense noted
an exception.
Mr.. Delmas argued that the document was
admissible because the various pages were
fastened together. with the signature on the
last page. Mr.. Jerome said that this was
not sufficient Identification. Justice Fftz-
gerald stated that the Identification was not
complete, and Mr.. Delmas then offered
only the last page in evidence, and Mr..
Jerome again objected Miss Pierce could
not positively identify even that page, al
though after conference at the attor-
neys' table, In which Thaw took part, Mr..
Delmas asked:
Miss Pierce 1t Is suggested that I ask
you If it is not true that the fine writing
near the signature was written In your
presence?'
Miss Pierce was still not able to posi-
lively identify it. although she said that so
far as her recollection went 1t is now In the
same condition 1T was when she signed It.
Defense Loses on VIII.
Justice Fitzgerald ruled that as 1t was to
be used to show the unsound mind of the
defendant, 1t must be positively shown that
II Was In the Same copdiffon
signed.
He sustained Mr.. Jerome's objection.
Mr.. Delmas then offered in evidence tha
same page. leaving out all interlineations
To this Mr.. Jerome objected on the ground
tnat there was nothing in It to show Thaw
was of unSOund mind.
Again the court sustained the objection
MI. Demas. stating that he was not nre-
pared to offer further evidence on the wins
tn then said he would continue with MRS
InaWs evidence, reServing the right to offer
further evidence In support Of the wills.
"Fate Of Other Young Girls.v
Mr.. Delmas then had Mrs Thaw recalles
and asked her again If Mr. Thaw had con-
stantly discussed with her. up to June *
1905. the fate Of other young girls. ..similer
to your fate with Stanfoi white" and
asked II In those discussions the defendants
manner was rational or Irrational.
Mr.. Jerome objected to the question =,
leading and was sustained -
did Mr.; Thaw discuss with you the fate
Of anyone?
Yes"
did he mention the names OF one mr.
more young girls ?'
Hera Mr.. Jerome said he must again nh
ject. on the ground that this testimony was
permissible only as tending to insanity. ana
as yet there was no evidence that the de-
fendant is or was insane. Mr.. Jerome sait7
there seemed to be no end to these tender
loin tales. brought here to smudEe the
memory Of him who is dead"
IF we haven't been showing the insanity
Of this defendant ever since yesterday
morning, what have we BEEN doing?r asked
Mr.. Delmas
contend that could have objected yes
terday." said District Attorney Jerome.
"but did not do so then because thought
We would haye to have some OF this sort OF
testimony In: bat did not suppose that we
were going into thu gosaip ~ &hp tenlyerloin
FOR several years. know mi - 1Grcs It,