The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1907-02-12


Tense proceeding with a new witness
while the examination OF Mrs. Evelyn
Ihaw remains uncompleted
Mr. Jerome said he thought the de-
Tense should offer some explanation of
Its purpose IN interrupting the testi-
mony OF Mrs. Thaw to introduce Mr.
Lyon as a witness.
Mr. Delmas stated that when court
had adjourned last Friday the will of
the defendant was under discussion and
had been ruled out because of the in
sufiiciency of the proof OF the dOcu-
ment 1t was now proposed. he said
10 proceed with the further idenufica-
ton Of the viii
Justice Fitzgerald stated that all
statements of Mrs. Thaw are on the
record. practically by consent. but now
the Judgment Of the court was invoked
The objection to the introduction Of
the documents on Friday was a tech
nical one, but Il was sound. There was
a witness on the stand when court ad-
journed whose testimony had not been
finished.
"It seems to me-" said the court.
that either that witness should be I'm
ished with. or consent should be given
10 proceed with this witness"
Mr.. Jerome, after a short whispered
conference with Mr.. DeImas, withdrew
his objection. and MIR. Lyon was per-
mitted TO give his testimony.
How long have you known Harry
K. Thaw?' asked Mr. Delmas
Knows Thaw from BOyhOOd.
Ever since he was a boy" replied
Mr. Lyon.
1T hand ,-,,, nm, ,,,-,7r,,, -, = oh r
if YOU ever saw 1t before?"
Mr. Delmas handed the witness a
large envelope Of heavy brown paper.
4 have seen this before" said the
Witness 1T was once in my posses
sion"
When did it come into your pos
session."
Some time prior to April 1, 1906
can't state the exact date"
WAS the envelope sealed. and did
IL apparently contain paekage?"
1T was sealed. and apparently con
tanned a package"
How did you receive the package o.
Prem the hands of Harry X. Thaw."
Mr. Lyon said he was familiar with
the defendants handwriting, and said
it was his handwriting on the envelope.
What did you do with the envelope?
PLACED it in my box in the safety
deposit vault in the bank"
How long did it remain there?'
Until the latter part Of November,
1906. when I took it out"
What did YOU do with it,"
4 gave IL to my stenOgrapher.
Charles Johnson
Mr. Delmas showed Mr. Lyon an
other envelope, part of the writing on
which he Identified as that OF his
stenographer.
Mr. Jerome took the witness, who,
under cross-examlnatiOn. remarked that
there were doubtless many letters from
Thaw in the bank at Pittsburg.
Can you, as vice president OF the
bank, produce those letters?'
yes. / suppose so
"Wil your"
"Why. yes. If YOU want them
Mr.. Jerome then stated that he could
not continue the cross-examlnation
without the letters, and asked the court
to order that the letters be produced.
tt finally was agreed that the letters
Mr. Lyon was excused. and Mr.. Del
mas next called TO the stand John 3.
OF counsel for the defense.
Mr.. Gleason has had possession Of most
Of the defendants papers since the roof
garden tragedy.
- Mr.. Gleason said the envelope con
tanning the will had been in his pos
session since December II, 1906, when
he received Il by mail from Pittsburg.
Absolutely no changes had been made
in the document from that time 10 this.
except the marks for Identification PUT
on the papers In court
Mrs. Thaw Recalled.
Mr.. Delmas then asked that Mrs. Eve
Ign Nesbit Thaw be recalled.
Tt has been testified by this witness
said Mr.. Delmas. that she wrote q note
10 her husband in the Cafe Martin the
night Of the occurrence on Madison
Square Garden. This note we under
stand TO be in the possession Of the
learned district attorney We now ask
the learned district attorney 70 produce
that paper"
MIR. Jerome arose.
we have a piece of paper" he said
I don't know that It is this note but I
win send for il"
When the note had been received and
identified by Mrs. Thaw. Mr. Jerome Of
Tered no objection to its being received
In evidence. The note proved no surprise,
the wording being only slightly different
from what had been generally reported.
dr. Delmas reaG it, as follows:
The b. was here a minute ago, but
went out again"
Mrs Thaw said the D" meant the
'blackguard,' and referred to Stanford
White
Did you ever hear Mr.. Thaw refer 10
threats made against his life by Stanford
White?"
Mr. Jerome at once objected on the
ground that in a plea OF self-defense the
defendants own statements are not ad-
nissible. Mr.. Delmas claimed that these
threats had been made. and it was COM
petent to prove that Thaw armed himself
after hearing these threats.
Justice Fitzgerald sustained the Obiec-
ion. and Mr.. Delmas noted an exception
He then returned TO Mrs Thaw and
3aid:
Mrs. Thaw, the name of May Mackenzie
has been mentioned a number of times in
his case VIII you state when you first
net her?''
Il think it was in 1901
Did you ever tell Mr.. Thaw Of a visit
made 10 May Mackenzie when she was
lick in a hospital and when Stanford
White was present."
Yes
State what you told Mr. Thaw?"
MI Jerome objected. claiming that this
vas another case of piling up cumulative
evidence without the essential fact being
irst shown.
Trying to Prove Insanity.
The defendant under this ruling is in an
Unfortunate condition" said Mr.. Delmas.
We are trying to prove the mental con-