The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-03-12
Delmas Outpoints Jerome
 ln Technical Objections.

she made a statement which contradic- | ted the fact that she did tell Thaw | any such story. 1 q asked her if she made all these | statements to Hummel and In the affi- dayit and she said she had not. Hav- ing called her attention to contradicto- ry evidence I have a right under the l law to go into truth or falsity of her evidence as to material and reversible facts
 I Mr Delmas finally withdrew his oh- | lection to the question as to whether l Longfellow had ever been telephoned to by Evelyn Nesbit.
 The witness said she had telephoned him several times.
 Did any of the conversations relate to an afidavit?' asked Mir. Jerome. MT. Delmas then renewed his objec- ton and an argument ensued. \ I Mrs Thaw," said MT. Jerome, "de- ciared she did not telephone MT. Long | fellow from Abraham Hummers office. l want to find out whether she did or not"
 Justice Fitzgerald ruled that the wit | ness might answer whether or not his l conversation over the telephone with 1 Evelyn Nesbit had to do with the affi- davit.
 They did not" said MT. Longfellow. | positively. | Mir. Jerome then showed the witness fthe photographic copy of portion of 1 the Hummel affidavit and another docu- ment and asked:
 You are familiar with the hand writing of Mrs. Evelyn Nesbit Thaw?" MT. Longfellow said he thought he could recognize Evelyn Nesbits hand writing. though he was not very famil- 1 jar with it.
 Did she eyer deliver to you" con- l tinued MT. Jerome, "a paper subscrib- 1 ed to by her, the contents of which were the same as the photographic copy I have shown you?"
 MT. Delmas objected.
 Did she ever deliver a paper to you which she had subscribed to?" asked Mir. Jerome. | Yes"
 What did you do with that paper?"
 T handed 1t to the present counsel in | the case" ''When?"
 Tn February" Rrtorts warmly.
 Mir. Jerome here demanded from Thaw's lawyers the production of the l paper. Mir. Delmas hotly retorted that Mr Longfellow has delivered to coun- sel no paper similar to the one in ques- tion
 T prefer to take the statement of the witness" said MT. Jerome. He is un- der oath"
 That is an unnecessarily insulting remark" said MT. DelInas. "You will find out by interrogating the witness that he did not deliver any such paper to us," continued Mir. Delmas.
 Did Evelyn Nesbit Thaw ever give you document signed by herself in the form of an afidavit,?" asked MT. Je- rome
 Not to my knowledge" replied the witness. 'To the best of my knowl- edge, never saw that paper before and know nothing about it."
 After this Mir. Longfellow was ex- cused and Coroner's Physician Timothy Lehane was recalled He was examined | by Assistant District Attorney Garvan. He said he examined Whites body
 Did you find any powder marks on his face7"
 MT. Delmas at once objected MT. Garvan said the testimony was to con tradict Mrs. Thaw's statement that Thaw stood twelve feet from White | when he fired.
 Justice Fitzgerald allowed the ques- ton.
 There were powder marks on the face."
 Police Officer Dennis Wright was next called to the stand as to conversations he had with Thaw the night of his arrest. l The witness said:
 When I was in Madison Avenue I saw him (Thaw). I asked him what l the trouble was. He said he wanted me to take him away from the crowd, to take him to the station house in Fifth Avenue. I asked the defendant if he | knew what he had done, and he said yes. l asked him If he knew who 1t was he had killed. He said he would say nothing until he reached the sta- | ton house."
 tionalT'
 Rational"
 The cross examination was brief.
 Gave Assumed Name.
 Police Sergeant David Mccarthy. who was on duty at the station house the night Thaw was arrested, next tes- titled He said Thaw had declared himself as Kohn Smith, Ss years of age. white, born in the United States, a student residing in Washington, D.
 T asked him who he had shot" con tinued Sergeant Mccarthy, and he said, T think had better not say any thing at present."
 Were his actions rational or ira tional?"
 Rational"
 MT. Delmas began his cross exami-
 
 You have stated all the conversa- tion you had with the defendant"
 'Yes"
 DO you remember seeing Daniel oReilly, a learned counsellor. that evening"" Not at that time" Did you not go to Mir. Thaw's cell with him that night?" l Yes"
 Then you do remember seeing
 "Yes but it was not until an hour later"
 Did Mir. Thaw at that time say anything about hearing the screams of unfortunate women upstairs%
 Not in my presence" He could not have said 1t then with out your hearlngT'
 'T don't think so." Here Mir. OReilly approached Mir Delnlas and began whispering to him. Mir. Jerome jumped to his feet. T object to counsel consulting here 1 In whispers loud enough for the en- tire jury to hear" he said sharply.
 T had no intention of saying things for the jury to hear" said MT. O'Reilly, Jerome Heard Himself, '1 don't suppose you did said Mir. Jerome, but they cannot help hearing you. I hear you myself"
 MT. Delmas and Mir O'ReilIy moved further away but again Mir. Jerome thought they were too close to the | iury This caused Mir DeImaa to losa