The Washington times., 1907-06-25
Miss Loving Must Tell
of Treatment by
Estes.
Ordeal Necessary for
Protection Of Her
Parent.

HOUSTON, Va, June z5.-Miss
Elizabeth Loving is on the verge
Of collapse.
Yet she must take the witness
stand-perhaps today-as a witness
for her father, former Judge ". G.
Loving. on trial charged with the
murder Of Theodore I. Estes, at
Oaw Ridge. April p.
The defense hoped for a time 20
spare the girl the ordeal of such a
public appearance So strongly was
the case built up by the prosecution
yesterday, however, that Judge Low
iDg's lawyers are agreed that she
must figure as a witness in support
OF her fathers story that he killed
Estes because the latter drugged
and maltreated the young woman.
Miss Loving Breaks Down.
Miss Loving seemed calm and self
possessed when she appeared IN court.
but the prosecutions steady attack. the
free use OF the terms capital punish
ment." death" and hanging" and the
realization that the crisis was actually
at hand. broke down her courage.
She wept all day IN the court room
and spent last night in a condition bor-
dering on hysteria- Physicians think.
nevertheless. that she viii be able to
nerve herself for the ordeal OF the wit
ness stand
Judge Loving himself was the first
witness IN his hanzl~ r0Azr- -
took the stand just before court ad-
JoUrned yesterday. but had not even
started On his testimony before the
lawyers became involved in a dispute
concerning the adrnissibility Of evidence.
and an adjournment was taken until
today 70 permit arguments and the sub
mission OF legal authorities
Judge Resumes the Stand.
The point az issue IS the admission OF
q story told by Loving's brother-in-law.
Harry Snead. TO the former. as a result
OF which. the defense asserts. Loving
killed Estes.
The prosecution occupied but a few
hours in presenting its case, which con-
sisted merely in showing OF the actual
/ circumstances Of the killing L viii
seek TO break down the "unwritten law
defense on rebuttal.
Judge Loving resumed the stand when
court opened today. Attorneys for the
prosecution and defense did not permit
him 20 begin his testimony at once. how
ever, but returned 20 their argument
over the adTnissibility OF his story that
a conversation with his brother-in-law.
Harry Snead, 50 enraged him that ne
killed Estes.
Even II this testimony is not admitted,
Snead viii undoubtedly be the next wit
[ the jury VIII hear how he told Loving
/ that Estes had wronged the judges
/ daughter.
Debate on Evidence.
Aubrey Strobe, OF the defense. argued
that the counsel for the prosecution was
| entirely wrong in its reasoning Of yes
| terday. TO the effect that If a man
found his wife guilty and killed either
/ her or the offender, the crime could not
/ be reduced from murder to manslaugh-
ter unless the husband actually saw the
guilty act He cited several cases to
show that though the law was origin
ally interpreted in that manner, late de-
/ cisions held that hearing Of the act IS
enough 70 reduce the crime.
| Mr.. Harmon. for the Common wealth.
| said that mere words were not sufficient
| prOvOcatiOn to reduce the crime from
murder 10 manslaughter. At this point
/ he was interrupted BY Mr. Lee, OF the
| defense who asked: DO you contend.
Mr.. Harmon. that words insulting Ian
guage. il you please, are never a provo
cation2"
That is my position, sir" answered
/ Mr.. Harmon.
Words as Cause Of Anger
DO you mean to tell me-" continued
Mr.. Lee, that man charged with as
sault and battery could not mitigate the
charge by showing that the man he had
assaulted used insulting language to
him.
Mr.. Harmon did not reply directly to
this question, saying he would discuss
Il later Continuing his argument. he
turned to the question OF cooling time -
and contended that that question should
not have entered into the discussion
because mere words were not sufficient
20 afford cause for excitement, and that
II person never became excited he
could not cool of"
AT this, point Mr. Lee again inter
rupted with the question
State Rests Case