The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-02-27

Union National Bank of Pittsburg, who was a witness two weeks ago.
 Mir. Lyon had custody of the ThaU will, He was requested by Mir. Je rome to send all of Harry Thaw's let ters and papers he had in his posses sion. Today the district attorney sait he had received a letter from MT. Ly ons stating that MT. Hartridge of thu defense had written him saying tha no paper or papers of date subsequen to June 25, 1906, were desired. MT Lyon asked that the court instruct hin precisely as to what papers are desir' ed.
 MT. Jerome asked Justice Fitzgeralc to make an order directing MT. Lyor to send all the papers.
 Mir. Hartridge rose to make the statement that before writing to MT Lyon he did not want papers after tho given date, he had a conversation witf MT. Jerome and that the latter said distinctly that he did not care for the letters and papers after date or June 25, last.
 Tt Is very unfortunate that we have these continual misunderstand- ings,' remarked Mir. Jerome.
 Tt is unfortunate" replied MT. Hart ridge, hotly. but 1t is fact that wrote to MT. Lyon relying on your statement"
 Witness Must HetuFu
 Justice Fitzgerald said he had no al- thority to issue an order to the wit ness, who is now out of the jurlsdtc- tion of the court.
 Unless he returns for cross exam- nation," said MT. Jerome, his direct testimony will have to be stricken out and with 1t the will and the codicil or the defendant
 .I'Il stand under oath that the dis &xtl he those letters" again interrosed Mir. Hartridge. His memory has gone back on him
 After further argument MT. Hart rides declared the courts time was be- ing wasted, for If tho district attorney now said he wanted all the letters the defense had absolutely no objection and would so instruct MT. Lyon.
 The matter of lerters having been disposed of Mir Jerome directed that Abraham H. Hummel, the lawyer who drew up the affidavit 10 which Evelyn Nesbit is said to have sworn and which charged Thaw with cruelties during their 1903 trip to Europe, take the stand
 Hummel was sworn and took his seat in the witness chair.
 The big court stenographer seated in front of the witness chair all but hid \the little witness from general view. The top of his bald head could occa- sionally be seen nodding to and fro. Mir. Jerome's first question was: Do YOU know Evelyn Nesbit Thaw?' Yes"
 when did you first see herr
 Some time in 1901 or 1eo2.
 "Where?,
 I don't remember exactly.
 Was it at your officer
 Not the first time"
 You knew her before that?"
 Yes"
 Did she go to your office on Octo- Der 27, 1903 '
 She was there late in the year 1903. I don't remember just when"
 Visit to His once.
 He was shown the photogrsphir copy of the last page of the famous aEsda- wit which MT. Hummel said refreshed his memory so that he could state pos itively that the date on which Evelyn Nesbit Thaw called at his office was October 27, 1903.
 Mir. Delmas objected several times to the use of the photograph but the court allowed tne questions.
 Did Miss Nesbit have a conversa- tion with you in your officer asked MT. Jerome.
 MT. Delmas objected but was over ruled.
 "Yes." said Hummel.
 Did you dictate to stenographer while she was present?'
 Mir, Delmas again objected, saying the purpose of the District Attorney apparently was to contradict Mrs, Tbaw and he could not properly inter rupt her cross examination for that purpose MT. Jerome argued the point at some length. particularly in answer to MT. Delmas's statement that collat- eral testimony was not permissible in testing the credbility of witness.
 If could prove Stanford White was in Europe the night she says she was drugged by him. declared Jerome, that would be a collateral fact, and l would not be allowed to put it in evil dence But if she told Thaw in Paris that there was no truth in her state ment about Stanford White. then that would be a material fact and l should be allowed to put 1t in"
 The affidavit contains the allegation that Thaw whipped Miss Nesbit when she told him there was no truth in the statement about White and refused to sign papers making the definite charge against the architect.
 T am not endeaVoring to impeach the witness protested Mir. Jerome "but I want to prove the existence of an original affidavit in order to intro duce the copy and intelligently con tinue my cross examination"
 Justice Fitfigerald oVerruled the oh jection and MT. Hummel said he did dictate a statement in the presence of Miss NesbIt.
 "On the next day" asked MT Jerome did Jacob Schnydccker give you pa per?''
 Yes
 document was shown the witness and he was asked If if was not a car- bon copy of the paper referred to MT Delmas at once objected and was sus- tained by the court, 1t being held that the question was an attempt to contro vertc ollateral facts brought out or cross examination.
 Mir. Jerome asked Iummnl severa other questions. where he gave tho pa per to Miss Nesbit? What became of it and when she next went to his office but objections to all of them were sus tained.
 MT. Hummel was thereupon excused temporarily.
 Hummers Clerk Called
 Abraham Snydccker. who was a clerl fin Hummels of7ce, next was called. IT. said he knew Evelyn Nesbit
 Did you on October 2S. 1903 sec heI sign a paper?" asked MT. Jerome
 MT. Delmas objected to the question the court ruled with him and Mir. Shy decker was excused for the time being
 MT. Delmas having successfully blocked for the time being all tcsti mony regarding the alleged affidavit Mir. Jerome asked that Mrs Evelyr Thaw be recalled. When she had ta ken the stand Mir. Jerome handed her paper and asked if from first to last i was in her handwriting Mrs ThAv spent some time in an ex1n,ination c