New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-03-12

thing occurred that before these horrible stories
We're toa 70 n I had P Po6 a wo bot Tbsy
these men described as friends of stanford
White. what want to say IS that that could not
have thrown his mind into a brain storm. because
he knew all about H.. and ! want to show that
the basis Of this very litigation In this very suit 81
Ethel Thomas against Harry X. Thaw. away back
in 19o2nthis Ethel Thomas litigation Of which Ar;
Longfellow testified 10 being the attorney for the
defendant mat that time. long before even the
Charges against Harry X. Thaw had been distinct
" brought 20 his attention by actual judicial
' Now is o6rops that these things to have
this effect on the mind Of Thaw to have the effect
of his reason. to produce q brain storm,
a psychic Elimination in which he like rud
derless ship that had lost IT'S BALANCE Wheel IN the
IT, must have been brought home to him for the
circumstances 1 am entitled to show in rebuttng
that these things had been known TO him long be-
fore IL IS stated that she related them To him;
that he was perfectly we'll aware of them; that
IN the most solemn way. in the Of Ethel
Thomas and by an actual judicial proceeding.
After an equally long argument by Mr. Del
mas and a discussion in which the court took
part the court sustained the objection. Efforts
of Mr.. Jerome to ask other questions about
Ethel Thomas were also frustrated. The subject
abandoned.
'HUAIMEL AFFIDAVIT AGAIN.
Mr.. Jerome then tried TO get in evidence the
Photographic and carbon copies of the Hummel
affidavit. and once more defeated by Mr..
Delmas He was asked by the court if there
was not evidence that the original was de-
stroyed. and said there was but added
w, We propose to show or endeavor 70 show that
iIat Is not tne tact; that that very paper de-
hvered To this woman and that She took tor /
am trying 70 ascertain whether not she did not
take that very paper stated burned up 10
Mr.. Longrellow. I want to trace that paper and
have perfect case where evidence secondary to
that is admissible. want 20 show that this paper
HUmmels office delivered to her and token
away by her from HummeIs office and delivered
10 Nj. Longteliow- Now, IL / 90 that trace It
INTO tie HduqS or the attorney for the defendant.
and cannot compel the defendant by any process
70 produce that paper. and therefore am entitled
to give secondary evidence Of assuming fbof the
Before start in 20 oner my secondary evidence
must snow 70 the court some why. when
e,.ila,ca -, 1e'''' Is SicoI4dfE
.NldeIce ana NOT primary. Now, IL is that ques-
tion we are on Now tha evidence as II stands
Is that she. Evelyn Neshit. was asked Did YOU
telephone TO Mr LonCfellOW from Howe q Hum
mel office? and got the reply that she did NOT
out she thought Mr. Hummel did
The paper referred 10 Mr.. LonEfellow said he
had given 20 counsel for the defence last month.
Mr.. Jerome tried to get It from counsel. through
subpoena duces tecum. served several davs ago.
but the witness said that the paper was not the
affidavit Mr.. Delmas added that counsel had
never received the affidavit For the second
time Mr. Jerome had TO give up. and Mr.. Long
fellow was excused
DR. Timothy D. Leblanc. coroners physician
was recalled 10 testify about powder marks
Mr.. Caravan. who conducted the examination.
got the physician 10 say he found powder
marks but aside from that DR.. Leblanc was NOT
allowed 10 tell anything