The Washington times., 1907-03-14
Deln1aS Scores OUer Jerome

/ELmldS
Continued from First Page.)
stood in such a confidential relation to
Evelyn Nesbit as her attorney that it
would be a violation Of his duty FOR him
TO disclose any conversation he had
with her at the time.
Will CorToborate Evelyn's Story.
BY this mean that 1 do not concede
that IL is in his power by his oath to
define the question of the relation of
attorney and client existing between this
man (pointing TO HummeD and young
Mrs. Thaw. / will corroborate her story
with competent evidence, and l will,
therefore, not concede that ne did not
act as her attorney.
There can be no question that, If ii
can be proven by competent evidence
that Miss Evelyn Nesbit did not make
any statement TO Thaw in Paris In 1903,
such testimony would be admissible
Hummel. Longing In the witness
chair, paid the strlctest attention TO
Lawyer Delmas
but this is not the proper and legal
way OF doing So" continued Mr. Del
mas. Her story cannot be contradlcted
by the man who acted as her attorney.
Fl find that the court of appeals also
states in the most emphatic manner the
reverse OF the district attorneys con-
tention. to wit: Where a contradictory
statement is made out of court only
the material part of the testimony can
be attacked"
Jerome Attempts TO Interrupt.
District Attorney Jerome at this point
interrupted Mr.. Delmas, who thereupon
exclaimed:
II listened with great interest to the
elaborate argument Of the learned dis
uFict attorney and l might have pre-
vented him from indulging his own
views and Interpretation from being
presented to the jury under the guise
OF being presented to the court I per
nitted him TO indulge in a personal pas
sion OF oratory-I might use .-arsher
term-feeling that the twelve intelligent
men in the jury box would heed the in
telllgent instruction OF your honor. that
matters not in evidence should not be
considered take il that your honor
viii allow me the same privilege that the
alstrlet attorney availed himself OF yes
terday.
so far as her story Of Thaw is con-
cerned II does not make a particle of
difference what she told MT Hummel
am a stranger to this court but under
the practice that am accustomed to. II
any part OF the testimony is tainted
that part is eliminated and a nice dis
crlmina ton is exercised in this process
OF elimination. This I believe is the
safer practice, although / am not un-
statement be eliminated when il is found
wanting in some one particular. Just as
wholesome food Is often cast away be-
cause part is tainted.
Delmas Comedies a Point.
- am not certain that under the rpIes
Of this State the burden Of proof would
rest on the party who would submit
matter as wholesome food only to find
that the food was to the great rart
poisonous. With the poison eradicated
the wholesome part would not remain
until substantiated. II this witness
might say that Evelyn Nesbit told him
she did not tell in Paris that night in
June, the story she has since related.
i might object. but under the peculiar
circumstances, Y viii not object
Il was announced by one of Thaw's
counSel that Hummel would be allowed
10 tell part Of his story. After con-
ference or the lawyers. said one Of
Ihaw's counsel, 1T was agreed to allow
Bummel TO tell some Of his story"
Suppose that after this poor girl had
told Mr.. Thaw this story OF the outrage
perpetrated upon her" said Mr.. Delu.as,
and he had become mentally unbaI-
anced and had beaten her in his frenzy
that would not lessen the uateriality OF
the fact that she told Thaw the story.
We solemnly assume the responsibility
Of forUidding that question 70 be asked %
The Question in Dispute
The question referred to by Mr.. Del
mas:
Did she tell HummeI that Stanford
White had not druEged her, and that
Thaw had said he wanted to put White
I'm the pen. and did she. Evelyn Nesbit.
say that when she refused to sign the
documents. charging White with the
outrage. Thaw stripped and beat her.
Delmas asked the court 10 cut out
everything except the following:
Q.-Did she tell you HummeD. that in
Paris Thaw had tried 70 induce her TO
sign papers charging White had drug
ged and injured her?
Jerome said:
'On page 1898 appears these words of
the testimony of Mrs. Thaw: Il told
Mr.. Humme that Mr. Thaw wanted 10
put Stanford White into the peni-
tentiary, but / never told Hummel that
o. nav hau urged me tlme and time again
20 swear TO certain documents that
White Lad drugged me. Nor did I tell
Elm that Thaw had beaten me-
Now continued jerome. If any
thing can be more direct than this testi-
mony. have yet To see it."
At this point. Justice Fitzgerald said:
AS the cases you cited Mr. District
Attorney. do not bear on the question
the objection must be sustained" ."
This means that only part Of the
cpnversation Evelyn Nesbit had with
Hummel could be testified 70 by Hum
mel.
Hummel was then questioned by AIR.
Jerome.
Hummel Again Questioned.
sQ.-id Evelyn Nesblt. prior to your
debating, tell YOU that she had told
'rhIw that it was not true that Stan
ford White had drugged and injured
A-She certainly did
Delmas jumped up and asked.
Are YOU an attorney and counselor
al law2' whereUpOn Jerome replied.
will YOU please address yourself 70
the court2
The learned district attorney" began
Delmas. at which Jerome leaped 10 his
feet again with an objection. He said. |
- am tired OF hearing myself referred
to as the learned district attorney !
and Mr.. Garvan as the learned assist /
ant district attorney
Mr.. DelmaS said.
Very well, then. keeping within the
bounds of truth. think il a most extra
ordinary proceeding that the district at
torney and his learned assistant and the
witness. a lawyer. would put and an
swer such question in the face of the
argument that preceded it, The ques-
tiOn is in. and so is the answer. I viii |
let IL stand I will waive my rights and
viii meet il at the proper time"
Questioned bV Jerome