The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-07-01
EXPERTS OPINION
. ON UNWR|T TEN LAW
Judge Cowii,g and ]. w. Osborne
Discuss 1t III New
York.
INSANITY A suBTERFUGE
Aerdict in Loving Trial Creates
Talk as to Need Of New
Law.

| NEW YORK, June 3o.--Because
prosecuting counsel in tho cases OF
Harry *. Thaw and ex-Judgc Loving
were barred from cross examining. In
one case the wife and in the other case
| the daughter, whose stories of drug
ging and ruin had reused the husband
and father to slay the author Of the
crime charged, lawyers and laity have
been discussing the situation presented
almost simultaneously In two famous
murder trials.
1t has been said that legislation
might be needed to meet new danger
confronting the community in its fight
to preserve law and order and punish
the assassin. The defining and limita-
ton of insanity as a plea and the en-
largement Of the field Of cross-exanli-
nation by the prosecution, so as to
permit the inqusition as to tho truth
or falsity of stories such as those told
by Evelyn Thaw and Elizabeth Low
ing, has been advocated.
Not Permitted to Impcach.
In the Loving case the district attor-
ney declared In and out Of court that
he could prove the falsity Of Elizabeth
Lovings tale of drugging and ruin at
the hands OF Theodore Estes. but he
was not permitted to get the evidence
before the jury.
District Attorney Jerome was not per-
mitted to impeach the truth Of the
story Evelyn N. Tllaw swore she told
Harry. An expert chemist was not
permitted to testify TINT there was no
drug known to science like that which
Evelyn stated made her unconscious
but did not prevent her revivng and
proceeding to her home from Stanford
Whites studio without the ministra-
tons Of a physician or any Ill ef-
fects.
No New Law Needed.
| Two eminent New York lawyers to-
day declared that there was no need
for new legislation. They did nor
think that any new or unique situa-
ton embarrassed the community In
enforcing the penalty for homicide
EN-Judge Rufus I3. Cowing and for
mer Assistant District Attorney James
| w. Osborne, both long experienced and
conVersant with criminal procedure in
| this city, said that, in their Judgment,
the so-callcd law OF provocation" did
not handicap the community, Said ak.
Judge Cowng to-day:
Ihere is no such thing as claw
OF provocation." In each Of the two
cases cited the defense seeks to
| 49," viz reason
was unsettled by what was told to
| him. In each case the issue mar
roWed down to the question of the
tact of the insanity of the defend
ant at the time of the commission
of the crime.
False statements to the, defend
ant could unsettle his reason as
| well as true statements So the
question as to the truth or falsity
of the story told to the defendant
and Which unsettled his reason lis
imma terial, Whether this plea of
insanity is being adyanced in good
faith is for the Jury to decide.
Presenting that witness takes
the stand to testify to.havlnE told
the defendant story calculated to
have unsettled his reason, then that
witness becomes subject to attack
as to her truth and veracity. 9th
er witnesses may be called to state
what they know of tho reputation
OF the witness as to truth and We
racity and whether the reputation
is good or bad The jury can be
guided by this testimony i'm form
ing its conclusion.
Tho truth or the falsity of the
story related by the girl is not ma
terial. The issue resolves itself
down to tho question of the fact
OF tho sanity or insanity Of the de-