Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-03-14
That She Told Thaw Story That
Stanford White Had Betrayed
Her Was Not True.
THEN DELMAs TURNED ON HIM
Looking at Him. and with Scorn
In His Voice, He Said, land You
Call Yourself a lawyer!
x,..,,,e called Defcnse's Attorney
.Yo,,ned,, >, and '-Learncd'' Counsel
Called Him .Irritablc Dist. Atty

New york. March 4---Aoran ',
,1,,,r,,,eI upon the witness stand NJ 'ue
,r,,Y n, Harry X. Thaw today, ueci'lreo
,hat EVELYN Nesbit. told him III ls'''
80 .ha had told Thaw in Paris that
=, ,,,,s not true that Stanford White mad
srnrgeS and betrayed her. The answer
~ question by Dist. Atty. jerome
WAS made so quickly that the cou'lS'i
Tow the defense had no time to interpose
an obiection Mr.. Delmas lot tue
.nswer stand saying there was no oc-
sion 10 strike 1t out after it had once
h4rn given to the jury, adding that ne
nrererted it should remain part OF ''ie
record.
In addition to Doctors Flint, Maoon
sna MacDonald, who have been I'D court
everv dav since the trial began MIR.
ssnar,.e Will call Dr. Devcndorf OF the
state hospital at Middleton, Conn., Dr.
Wn. d. Pritchard of the New York
poIyclinic institute; d. VIM Hirsch OF
the Cornell medical school and pr' Az
Ian MacLane Hamilton
Mr.. Jerome's Hypothetical question
for submission to The experts came from
The printers today. Harry Thaw him
relf took a copy OF the question Wnlch
covered IS printed pages, and read lt
through carefully -
After Abraham Hummer ha,
been se n called d e thu 6Se rh n'1 trial
TODAY Mr. Delmas began his afsn-
r,eut in reply 10 Dist. Atty. Jerome AS
Ia the evld euce Humtnel has 70 otier
regarding the affidavit Evelyn Nesp'e
is said TO have made In his once
fat n
this evidence, If allowed, would tehN
to show that Evelyn Nesbtt may not
have told the defendant the STORY
which Is said to have made MIN an
pr. Allan aIcLanc Hamilton. the
slienist who was employed by TlaaW
soon after the tragedy but who now
has become n witness for the state
was In court today along MIN Nay
other experts for the prosecution MI
Jerome may call eight experts III all
In beginning his argument MI Del
mas touched first upon the polH' va
the professional relations eXisunG pe-
tween Evelyn Nesbss and NJ. "a u,n.
mel at the time the aitluaNit ""9
made. H.. ~
Hummel denied yesterday that ne
Was acting for the girl. SAYING ne Wes
employed by Stanford White. ana shae
no legal action was fontehipia'su III
behalf of Miss Nesbit.
DE1IM-AS' CONIElN ltcN'
1--WE still contend.'' said Mr.. Dellnas.
SHAT this witness was acting III the
capacity of attorney 10 THIS gifi. IL
lis not for him by his word TO Iene
that such a relation existed ld"W
ever we will reserve that objection.
Mr.. pslnas chen turned TO the ques-
ton OF the admissibility of evidence
contradicting the statements OF Il WIZ
ness made out OF court
I'm ref6Ifed
,horlties cited by Dist Atty Jerome
Yesterday in support of the adlnlssi-
biity OF such testimony and said he
was amazed TO find that one or lne
decisions mentioned states exactly
The reverse OF what the learned dis
trict attorney announced
Much of what the district attorney
said yesterday. Mt. Delmas declared,
was objectionable but allowed MN
10 talk OF much that Is MOI In the evil
uence and that might have been OBJ
Secfed to- because was willing to trust
10 the fair-nnindedness OF 'his Jury.
which Is my only protection
MIR. Delmas took up the question
which MI. Jerome asked Mr.. Hummel
and said il was objected to clause by
clause and explained where each one
was Objectionable. The question called
FOR q. reply from Humnaei as 10 what
Miss Nesblt told him In his Office, as 10
whether she told him Thaw had
charges against White as TO her ruin
were not true
MIR. Delmas closed his argument by
asking that the court rule out Hum
mels testimony as Improper anu nav
Ing no bearing on the case
MIR Jerome answered Mr. Delmas
briefly, claiming that as Mrs, Thaw's
statements on the stand had been direct
Rnd positive. he must be allowed to
tontrovert them.
After the arguments were concluded
Justice Fitzgerald said,
The cases cited are not proper an-
thnTity on the question under consd-
.ratlol. The objection must be sus-
taIned.'
This ruling seemed to bar all OF Hum
me's testimony, but Nh Jerome pro-
needed 10 question him and soon there
was a dramatic clash with Mr.. Delmas
WHAT EVELYN TOLD HUNMsI.
''At the interview In your office" ask.
ed Mr.. jerome, did Evelyn Nesblt
prior 10 your debating anything, tell
YOU that she had told Thaw that IL WAS
not true that Sta nford White had
shrugged and ravlshcd herr"
Mr.. Delfnas WAS OH his feet to object,
but before he could do so, liummel said
In n loud voice.
'She certainly did"
Mr.. Delmas looked al the witness, and
with sccrn In his voice. soid And you
call yourself lawyer"
Mr. Jerome asked MI Delmas 10 adj
dress his remarks 10 the court, He
further said he understood Mr.. Del
mas 10 have said he would not Obieou
TO an answer 10 such a question as WAS
asked the Witness His assistant, MI
Caravan, had told him Nh. Delmus had
made such a statement while he lJe-
rnrne) was out Of the room.
II nlade no such statement" de-
elared Mr., pslmas, specifically rn-
serve the right to object to any guess
lions put 10 tn. witness"
Mr. DelInas turned TO Hummel and
"ycu heard me reserve that right.
Admit yOuY'
II did
sand the learned assistant district
Bitornsy heard me7" asked MI. pelnlas,
turning to Nh Caravan,
LEARNED AND IRRITABLE AT
TOHkEfS,
l.rl .,s.r a he