The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1907-03-16

by the defense and by the prosecution.
Baslng their opinions on these Ques-
tions. they all declared that Thaw on
the night he shot and killed Stanford
White knew the nature and quality of
his act and knew that the act was
wrong. One question was put by Mr..
Hartridge of the defense TO DR. William
Mabon, the last of the experts.
''Do doctors often disagree as TO
the form of a man s insauity0' he
ssked g -
Mr. Jerome S objection was overrulcd
and DR.. Mabon replied:
''Thev do -
Mr.. Jerome announced that when the
matter of the admissibilitv of the Hum
mel affidavit is disposed of the prose
cution Will rest.
The defense, however, will not,
said Mr.. Delmas, and he further init.
mated that more experts will he called
by him on surrebuttal.
Hurrying the Experts.
At the opening OF the Thaw trial to.
day District Attorney Jerome consented
to a request from Mr. Delmas of tho
defense that he be allowed to defer the
cross examination OF Or. Austin Flint.
who In an answer to two hypothetical
questions yesterday declared the opinion
that Thaw at the time he shot and
killed stanford White was sane and
knew the nature and quality Of bis act,
DR.. Flint was excused and DR. William
Hrsch of the Cornell Medical school was
called as the second OF the six experts
called TO testify Tor the State.
After DIR. HrsCh had Qualined himself
by stating what his medical education
and experience had been, District Attor-
ney Jerome asked him:
WAS the person described I'm the hy
pothetical question OF the defense suf-
fering from such mental arrangement
that he did not know the nature OF his
act or that the act was wrong"
HE certainly was not" was the re-
Now, DOCTOR" said Mr.. Jerome. what
is a brain storm?'
There Is no such thing as a brain
storm known among scientific men,"
came the response.
when DR.. Wagner was upon the wit
ness stand he cited no Mr.. Jerome case
Of brain storm described in a recognized
textbook on insanity, Mr.. Jerome called
this case 10 Or. HIirsch's attention"
Mr.. Delrnss objected on the ground
that II was collateral issue.
Justice Fitzgerald ovcrruled the OBJ
lection and Dr Hrsch said the case cited
was no more similar TO the Thaw affair
than case OF smallpox resembles
broken leg.
"That is all" said Mr.. Jerome.
No CROSSE Examination.
NO questions. doctor: you may step
aside" said Mr.. Delmas.
DR.. William Prtchard followed DR.
Hirsch upon the stand. His responses TO
the two hypothetical questions were
Identical with those of Dr. Hirsch
Mr. Demas waved Dr. Pritchard aside
when he was turned over by the Dis
trict Attorney for cross examination
1t was then announced from the de-
fendants counsel table that there would
be no cross examination Of the experts
Tor the State.
DR.. Albert w Ferris the next expert.
was upon the stand but n few moments.
lie answered the two questions as the
others had done and was dismissed by
Mr.. Delmas.
Dr. A. R. Diefendorf OF the State hos
pital at MidGletown, Conn. was the fifth
expert TO testify ard his opinion was
that the prisoner was sane when he
killed White.
MIR. Delmas started to ask DR.. Diefen-
dor5 T6ado g., question ais as to o CERTAIN statements
Mr.. Jerome objected and Mr.. Delmas
Withdrew the question.
Dr. Mabon, the last of the six experts.
was called. DR.. Mabon was OF the same
mind as the FIVE doctors who preceded
him upon the stand
When Mr.. Jerome had concluded his
direct examination of DE- Mabon, who
is superintendent OF the State hospital !
for the insane on Wards Island. Mr..
Hartridge OF Thaw's counsel said he had
few questions to put 10 him:
rs II not true" ne asked, "that ply
sicians often differ as to the form of In
sanity from which a patient may be suf-
ferinG?"
District Attorney Jerome objected, but
was overrued
''rhey do" admitted DR.. Mabon
Hartridge Attacks Question.
Mr. Hartridge said that many things |
which are in evidence were left out OF |
the hypothetical question framed by the |
District Attorney, and undertook TO sup |
ply some OF the details
Mr. Jerome objected especially TO the |
reference 10 the Monk Eastman gang |
and said there was not n fact correctly |
stated by Mr.. Hartridge which is not |
contained In one or the other OF the two |
hypothetical questions put to the witness. |
Mr.. Jerome objected to Mr.. Hartrldge's |
concluding clause In the question as TO !
whether the defendant was suffering |
from any form of insanity the night OF |
June 20 last The District Attorney de- |
clared the law is explicit as to the form |
OF insanity which constitutes an excuse |
Tor crime-that the person must be suf- |
fering from such q defect of reason as |
not 20 know the nature or quality OF his |
act or TO know that the act was wrong |
The luncheon recess was ordered with |
the matter pending.
When court reconvened after the |
luncheon recess. Mr.. Hartrldge said he
would withdraw the question asked DR.. |
Mabon.
Then there is no cross examination" ?"
queried Mr.. Jerome
None" said Mr.. Hartrdge.
In that case. your honor said Mr. |