The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1907-03-12
Lonefellow.
Were the papers served on this de
fendant?"
Jerome's Move Blocked.

was unseatea hv his wlfc's revelation OF
what Stanford White had done TO her
and TO other young women
1T has been said that the alleged hcts
OF peFversion by Stanford White addea 10
the fury OF his mental unh1lance, l Waut
TO, show tha! he knew AL ,n,h @9puI t., sqSn 1Sn
complaint in this suit by Ethel Thomos.
the papers OF which were served on MIN.
Mrs Evelyn Thaw had testlned lhat
she had been shown copy oil the bthe'
Thomas affidavit by Abraham Hummel
who said the case had been dropped pc
cause OF the character OF the complaih-
ant. .,,,
Mr. Delmas replying to the District
Attorneys argument quoted az some
length from Jeromes statement az tue
beginning OF the trial when EVELYN Ihaw
was upon the stand, that her testimony
was permissible only es showing, Thaw
state of mind and that he would not De
allowed TO contradict II.
''We told him. said Delmas, we
would have no objection to him attacking
the truth of the wife's story.
%Now do you obJect?' snapped Jerome
yes; because you would not accept
our offer to waive our riSht wnen the
story began" retorted Mr.. Delnas
Mr. Jerome declared that Mr.. Delmas's
argument did not cover the pom, at rs
sue. 1t was the effect OF Evelyn Nes-
bits story on Thaw,s mind he was at
tempting 10 contradict.
~ am not trying to show that Ethei
Thomas's accusations were true, ani said
fact. Anyway. this poor sirl is no"
Mr. pelmas objected to the, rsterenss nee
TO the Thomas girl as poor girl, ana
the statement that she is now dead
Mrs. Thaw herself testified that she
Is dead, said Jerome. who withdrew the
adjective poor.
Much Legal Sparring.
MY Jerome said ,hat more than two
years before Evelyn Thaw told Thaw
the story which is said TO have unoal,
anced his mind. he knew all the evil
practices OF men in New York
Mrs. Thaw herself says she was told
the story OF Thaw tying young woman
to n bed post and beating her That rs
Mr. Deimas arose to protest: IT must
object to the learned District ATTORNEY
testfying In this case, and beseech him
not TO continue to give the jury as taGts
his understanding OF the points at Is
sue" said Mr.. Delmas.
Justice Fitzgerald instructed the jury
The question was repeated as to
whether the papers In the Ethel Thomas
case were served upon Thew.
objection sustained, ruled the court.
Did there come into your possession
nj any time letters written by this de-
fendant to Ethel Thomas? asked Mr-
Mr. pelmas objected on the ground
that any such letters must have been
written prior 10 1908 and therefore had
WHY, YOU honor" said Mr.. Jerome,
THE defense has traced this mans dis
ease back TO the measles and mumps
We ought TO have some right To show
his condition down TO 1903 May l NOT
go into other portions OF his life TO show
Mr. Jerome contended that II he was
not allowed 10 so into matters prior TO
1908. all evidence relating TO matters
before that time introduced by the de-
Tense must he stricken out. This Mr.
Delmas agreed TO, but when Mr.. Jerome
said this would cause the hypothetical
question TO be stricken out as we'll, ne
withdrew his consent.
MIR Jerome showed the witness
document and asked If II refreshed his
mind ms to when he represented Thaw
In the Thomas case.
Another Point for Defense.
Mr. Delmas objected to further aues
tioning OF the witness as TO the-Ethel
Thomas case upon the ground that Mr..
Longfellow at the time was acting as
Thaw'S counsel
'Of course" said Mr.. Jerome. 'If you
are going 70 plead pTo5ess1@nal sbeaa pTRyesG
thought counsel, In the interest OF truth,
might waive"
"Your honor" interrupted Mr.: Delmas,
s'in defending man for his life l nave
no power to waive anything
Mr.. Jerome asked Mr.. Longfelow II he
was telephoned TO in 1904 by Evelyn
mel, and Mr.. Delmas objected. asking
Mr.. Jerome what his purpose was in ask
ing the question.
II am allowed by the rules of evil
husband husband in Paris that she had been
raytshed by Stanford w white; In Hum :
statement which contradicted the fact
that she did tell Thaw any such story
] asked her II she made all these state
,<nl In, laa O. Tn md
she said she had not Having called her
attention to contradictory evidence,
have a right under the law TO go into
the truth or falsity of her evidence as TO
material facts"
Mr. Delrnas finally withdrew his OBJ
lection to the question.
The witness said she had telephoned
him several times
did any OF the conversations relate
to an affidavit?" asked Mr.. jerome.
Mr.. Delrnas then renewed his objec-
Evidence which is introduced for the
purpose of showing that Mrs. Thaw s
story is untrue is OF course not admis-
sible." said Mr.. Delmas, but evidence
tending TO show that she never told this
story TO her husband is clearly adnlls-
sIbIe. But ] cannot see that this is any
thing but an effort 20 controvcrt the
truth OF what She says she told her hus-
band"
Justice Fitzgerald ruled that the wit
ness might answer whether or not his
conversations over the telephone with
Evelyn Nesblt had 10 do with the affi-
davlt
''They did not" said Mr.. Longfellow.
positively
Mr.. Jerome then showed the witness
the Photographic copy of a portion OF
the Humnlel affidavit and another docu-
rnent, and asked
Are you familiar with these and the
writings Of Mrs. Evelyn Thaw?"
Quarrel Over Papers.
Mr. Delmas demanded TO see the docu-
ments.
Mr.. Longfelow said he thought he
could recognize Evelyn Thaw's hand
writing.
"Dld she ever deliver 10 you" con.
tinued Mr.. jerome. "a paper subscribed
to by her, the contents OF which were
the same as the copy l have shown
you?"
Mr.. Demas objected
Ibid sho ever deliver a paper TO yol
which she had subscribed to?" asked Mr.
Jerome,
eyes but you must understand / an
not referring TO the paper you hay'
handed me. have no reference TO tha
whatever"