The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1907-03-14
THE WEBERG TRIAL

Continued from Page 5.)
on the floor or something to keep me
warm; If he hasn't got the money 10
purchase it with will let him have
it."
Letters Would Explain.
Q. Did you have any further con-
versation with him.
A. Yes in a little while 1 asked him
why he killed the girl and he replied:
There are some letters in my pocket
book that will explain that"
He testified that at the time of this
visit he detected the fumes of alcohol
from the breath of the defendant.
Witness aroused the defendant from
sleep about 1890 o'clock. The de-
PENDANT having fallen to sleep about
IL. Upon being awakened and being
told that he would have to get ready
for a journey, he replied: care they
going to take me away tonight" "Is
the train in" There had been no
train in Fairdale for four weeks and
none expected. When taken into the
hotel Office and seeing the handouts
in the possession of the deputy sheriff,
defendant inquired If they were going
to place them on his feet too. Witness
asked the defendant at the time of his
second visit to the room. Have you
been drinking today" and the defen-
dant replied: Nothing more than
know what i am doing"
Was Intoxicated.
The question being asked as to the
witness opinion to the sanity or insan-
ity of the defendant at that time, he
replied that, in his opinion, the de-
PENDANT was sane.
@. Was he intoxicated or not in
toxicated!
A. Intoxicated.
On cross-examination, attorney
Sinkler endeavored to introduce be-
fore the jury some of the answers of
the witness at the preliminary hear
ing, but was shut out by the court.
Had No Right.
In endeavoring to break down the
testimony of the witness who had been
called by the state merely as a lay
man the defendants counsel sought
to qualify the doctor as an expert and
failing in that because of objections
endeavored to propund questions with
In the province Of an expert. The
court held that a physician called by
the state and asked such questions as
could be answered by a lay witness,
the defense had no right to assume
that he was an expert and question
him along those lines?
Was Considered.
The doctor stated that his opinion
when based was upon facts and cir
cumstances surrounding the homicide
what he had heard and observed of the
defendants actions and also upon his
experience as a practicing physician.
@. The matter Of the sanity or in
sanity of the defendant was duly con-
stdered by you at the time that you
formed your opinion?
A. l considered the matter of in
toxcation or Standardization more
than anything else. On motion of the
defendants counsel the answer was
stricken from the record.
When questioned further as to the
conversation he remembered that the
defendant had asked the night of the
homicide answered. "He said are the
street cars running" or, "off the
track"
@. Ordinarily it was an incoherent
conversation that he was carrying on
at that time?
A. Why, l don't know as incoher-
ent would express 1t exactly. Some
thing that people generally call non
sense.
Q. Doctor, did the defendant say
anything about his head?
A. Yes, the second time I was in
the room he said that his head felt
funny or felt bum, l can't recollect
which.
Sleep Of I.tOxication.
@. Was the defendant at the time
he was asleep in sleep of intoxica-
ton!
A. Apparently. In my opinion, yes
sir.
Counsel during the entire examina-
ton laid great stress on. the fact that
the sleep coming five hours after the
commission and that length of time
after the defendant was without in
toxicating liquor could not have been
caused by the effects of the liquor,
and must, therefore, have been brought
on by a mental affliction.
Not much sense Is required to write
poetry, but good deal of sense is re-
quired to understand it.
aa others see them, but they don't be-
lieye what they see.