The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-03-12

that formal oath was administered to him. 7s3s
 This ended his cross examination and when he left the stand the court took the usual luncheon recess.
 Police Captain W. H. Hodgins, who was in charge of the nineteenth pre- cinct in which Madison Square Garden Is located on the night of June 25, last, was called as a witness follow ing recess. In answer to MT. Gar vans questions he said he first saw Thaw at about 1 o'clock on the morn ing of June 26. He went to Thaw's cell with several officers.
 T asked Thaw if he had any state ment he wished to make, but he did not answer that I heard. I-asked him if he had any lawyer or relatives he wanted to send for. He said he would like to send for Longfellow. or Dele fafield or Hornblower. He said he did not think Hornblower or Choate were in town.
 What other conversation did you have with Thaw?" asked Mir. Garvan. "Iie was In full evening dress; I told him he was in no place for such clothes and had better get others. He made no answer" 'was Thaw rational or irrational?" Actions Were Irrational.
 Captain Hodgins caused decided stir by his answer .Ta his actions and answers he was irrational; in appearance he had a stare and gaze such as he has now; look at him"
 On motion of Mir. Delmas, the an- swer was stricken out. Mir. Garvan repeated the question.
 T think he was very rational in some ways" said Captain Hodgins.
 Again the answer was stricken out and the question repeated.
 "rll have to qualify my answers,' said the witness. T believe he was more rational than irrational"
 Once more Garvan repeated the ques- ton and Captain Hodgins repeated his last answer.
 MT Delmas had no questions on cross examination and the witness was excused.
 Warren Caxton, superintendent of the Madison Square Garden, was called. He had testified on the States direct case.
 Mir. Garvan. 'in your opinion, was the defendant rational or irrational?' Rational"
 On cross-examination, Mir. Delmas asked:
 How long had you known Stanford White?'
 sixteen years"
 AACW O4hSh dAA JO0 SGo AAkA 1b tAAO Barden?'
 Three or four times a year"
 Not oftener than thatT"
 "No"
 Henry $. Blaze said he thought Thaw's actions and manner on the night of the shooting were rational. The light, he said, was rather dim, and he could not tell whether Thaw's face was pale or red, whether his eyes were natural or bulging.
 Says Light Was Bright.
 Myer Cohen, who was also one of the State witnesses. on direct prosecu- tion, was recalled and said he thought Thaw's actions were rational On oross- -examsnation, the witness said the light on the Garden roof was very bright. Thaw's face was more pale than red. and his eyes looked natural
 District Attorney Jerome here called Dr. Rudolph Witthaus to the stand. pr. Witthaus said he was an expert in the science of poisons. He quail fled as an expert by telling of his edu- cation and the books he has written.
 Doctor" asked MT. Jerome, "are you familiar with all the known drugs that produce insensibility when taken through the mouth?'
 T think I am."
 Assume, sir, that a young woman 16 3-4 years of age drinks one glass of champagne at supper with a gem tleman after the theatre; that after eating she passed into another room, played the piano there and then pass ed into a bed room where there was another small bottle of champagne; that she drank a glass of this cham pagne; that 1t tasted to her the same as any other champagne towit: bitter; that within two minutes she heard a pounding in her ears, the room became ,t.- IT. l..k while she was in this state of insen- sibility she was ravished. that she awakened in alarm and very shortly thereafter drove with the man to her hotel, where she sat down in a chair, remaining awake and looking out of the window until morning; assuming all these facts. is there any poison known to science that would produce the insensibility indicated in the question and permit of the quick re- covery also indicated in the question:"
 Mir. Delmas promptly objected on the ground that tho question was im- material, not rebuttal testimony and not permitted under the rules of evil dence as attacking the truth of Mrs. Thaw's statement to her husband.
 T take it. as general rule," said MT. Jerome in reply. that when a witness testifies to an important point 1t can be disputed. The principal fact in this case is whether or not Mrs. Thaw told the story to this defendant in Paris as she has testified she did. If it can be shown that she did not make the statement to Thaw, then the conclusion that this caused the in- sanity falls to the ground. There are two ways in which the falsity of fact may be proved. The first way Is by direct testimony but it may also be proved by circumstantial evidence where direct evidence Is not aVaila- ble. Therefore the people are driven to circumstantial evidence.
 T should say that the fact we can prove that the things she described did not occur. for the answer to the hypothetical question Is evidently cir cumstantial evidence which tends to show that the main fact-her state ment that she told these things to Mir. Thaw-is not true.
 No Drug Has Effect.
 '1f can show that there is no drug known to science which will produce the results she told of. I submit that 1t is plainly admissible"
 Mir Jerome then read a case decided by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky which he said bore exactly on this point.
 He then concluded his argument by saying: The material question here