The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1907-06-27

Special % The Washington Herald.
Houston, Va. June 26.-With the open
ing of the third day Of the Loving muir
der trial to-day, the defense put on the
stand two witnesses. who testified as 70
the habits Of Loving and his excessive |
drinking
The first was Sheriff John z. Beard. Of
Amherst. vino said he had known the
accused since his birth, and that he was
present when Loving was admitted 20 the
bar, tweuty-siK years ago, and that he
had the brightest prospects Of any man
in the country. Soon after going to the
bar he was elected 20 the general assem- |
bly,, and began 20 drink excessively.
The witness said that the accused had
been on a spree for four consecutive |
years, never being from under the infiu-
ence Of liquor and thai he repeatedly suf-
feTed from delirium tremens So fast did
he 20 down and unfit himself for bust
ness. that he would not consult him for
advice and would not ask him to prepare /
legal papers.
The character OF the man after he had
begun TO drink was wholly changed.
said the witness. while sober. Judge
Loving was an agreeable and aml5ble
man. but under liquor he was cross. Irri-
table, dissgroeahlp. and quarresOme He
was never afraid Of anything or any
body. Because Of his habits his home and
his belongings had been sold out by the
sheriff I'm execution Of a decree OF court
90 satisfy the creditors Of the accused. !
Later Judge Loving had gone 70 his old
home and his wife returned 20 her home
Then he had taken the Kelley cure and
since that time had done very little drink
Ing. having been under the influence Of /
liquor but twice I'm recent years"
Beverley r. Harrison. OF Amherst told
the same story as did the preceding wit !
ness. saving that ne had on several Oc- /
Casi0ns sat mp with Judge Loving when
he was on debauches.
Expert Put on stand.
DR.. Charles n Emmons, Of Washing
ton, formerly o. Hamm0nd's Sanatorium /
New York, was called as an expert. and /
for an hour and half the witness was on /
the stand His direct testimony was IN /
response 10 the hypothetical question 4
propounded by the defense. which re-
viewed life habits and character. the |
crime, and the cause thereof, with which /.
Loving IS charged.
Asked as 20 the condition Of the mind /.
Of a man under the circumstances. when 4
told that his daughter the object Of his /.
affections and admiration. had been sub |
ierted TO i1dienities and had been I.
brought home insenslble from drink. wit /.
ness said that, in his opinion the accused /
was insane.
Witness said that he had been engaged /
i'm the practice of his profession for more .
than twelve years. and IN that time had /
devoted himself 70 diseases Of the brain 4
and nervous troubles. Replying TO 4
question as 20 the effects Of alcohol on /
the nervous system. he said that great /
many cases Of insanity were due 20 |
alcoholism. He technically described the /
effect of alcohol on the brain. saving that /
a man with delirium tremens would never /
wholly recover from the effects Of the at /
tack. lie might be restored 20 sanity. but /
the traces of the alcohol and the delirium /
uemens would ever remain.
IOyfnE's Brain Diseased.
He had examined Judge Loving ten I
days ago in his Office at Washington. ap- /
PLYING the usual tests. and he was con- /
WINGED that his brain was diseased. "One !
case Of delirium tremeus may produce /
a case Of permanent and incUrable in /
sanity" said the witness. Whatever may |
be the recover. however, the brain will I
ever show that it is impaired and a man
is never again fully himself after an
attack"
do you regard Judge Loving an IN
sane man to-day" asked Wood Boudln.
Of the prosecution
ct cannot say, for have not examined /
him since he was in my office in Wash
ingtOn. ten DAYS ago" said DIT Emm0ns. /
With this the defcnse rested its case,
and the state announced that it would
begin rebuttal and seek 20 discredit the
testimony Of Miss Loving and the state
mont she made to her father
THE State said Mr. Harmon. will
undertake 20 show that Miss Loving told
Miss Kidd an entirely different story:
that she was not drugged; that she had
alishted from her buggy herself. and
that the buggy in which she was riding
had been followed by another couple an
the way. and that no indignity was at
tempted"
Prosecution 10 show Malice.
The jury was sent out Of the room and
the lawyers engaged in a long debate over
The relevancy of the evidence sought 10 be
introduced, the defense holding that such
testimony had no direct bearing on the
'ase at bar and was wholly collateral. The
only question that could be introduced
was one which had been already opened
lp by direct testimony and on cross
EXAMINATION
I'VE will show said Mr.. Harmon. with
great emphasis. that Loving killed Estes
IN malice, because Of alleged misdeeds
We will show that the liquor was not
rugged. and We viii show that Loving
made no attempt TO ascertain the correct
ness. by inquiry. of the statements of his
laughter. And in that we believe that heI
was negligent
Walden Moore, Of the defense, referred
o the ruling in the Thaw case. saving that /.
he statements made by Evelyn Nesbit
Thaw, and which had caused the killing ]
IF Stanford White by Thaw. had been +.
'aised. and that Jerome had not even in
sisted that they be admitted recognizing
hat they were i'm no way connected with
he actual killing, and that only the oc- /;
.urTences directly associated with the
rhine could be presented