Evening journal., 1907-03-11

CONTINUED From first raseJ
Longfellow could not remember but II
was within two or three days
Another wranglo followed the question:.
"Did you receive telephone message
from Evelyn Nesbh from Abe Hummels
officer
II was apparent that jerome was trying
10 lead up to the famous Hummel afd-
davit in which Evelyn is alleged to have
sworn 10 the reported abuses Of her by
Thaw in Europe. Delmas was quick 70
block the way. He wished 10 know how
such could he IN rcbuutal.
Jerome sprung a big surprise IN his
argument by declaring he proposed 10
show the Hummcl affidavit had not been
destroyed as Evelyn intmatcd when she
said paper bearing her signature was
burned IN lfummers office. but had been
taken by Evelyn to Mr.. LongfeHow Jerome
explained he was thus laying the basis to
get In secondary evidence as TO the con-
tents Of this affidavit If he could trace
tho document to Thaw's lawyer where he
could not hope 70 obtain t. secondary evil
dcnce as to ITS contents would be admis-
slble.
Thaw's lawyers showed their surprise
az the sudden turn Jerome took When
Hummel was on the stand two weeks ago
Jerome's questions indicated an intention
to prove the destruction of the affidavit
as the basis for Introducing a copy. His
course to-day was a surprise to everyone.
Delmas fought hard, insisting the only
purpose could be TO impeIch the truth OF
the story told ITO Thaw by Evelyn in Paris
in 1908, and this was the forbidden. Long
fellow admitted receiving several tele-
phone messages from Evelyn and Jerome
pursued;
did any OF these messages relate to
tne afhdavit2'
Here came Delmas objection Justice
Fitzgerald finally decided the witness
might answer yes or no.
mo" ansewrcd Longfoilow.
Jerome took "a new turn I'm his effort
obring out the affidavit He present .
ed a copy TO Longfellow FOR identhca-
tion.
Did Eveiyn Nesbit deliver to you
I subsequent TO October H. 1908. a paper
bearing her signature" asked chrome.
WAS its contents The same as the
contents OF the paper you have just
read"
The witness did not answer and a
long discussion followed which finally
, ended by the witness saying: "To
my knowledge, Evelyn Nesbit never
delivered to me rnat asilavit. / never
saw this matter before"
Delmas also stated chat the counsel
for the deefnse did not have and never
htd had the original OF this affidavit.
- Longfeilow was then excused and Dr.
feahn. coroners physician, who per-
formed the autopsy on white. was
caleld.
Dr. Timothy Lehans' appearance on
teh stand was brief. The purpose Of
e calling him. It. developed. wa sto con
A traidct Evelyn's statement that Thaw
s was probably twelve feet away from
Q White when he fired the shots, but
b he was not allowed to go far. Justice
Fitzgerald sustaining Demas objec-
ton that such testimony was not In
rebuttal as the ground had been COW
cred on direct examination. Assistant
{ District Attorney Garvan conducted
/ this part Of the examination.
Police Dennis Wright. who assisted
I Policeman Dehesto take Thaw to the
. Tendorloin station after the shooting
s was called.
4 THAw SANE NIGHT OF SHOOTING
Wright and Sergeant David McCarty
fthe Tederloin Police station. who fol-
lowed him on the stand. both declared
from their conversation with Thaw on
the night Of the Nooting that he was
sane. They We're allowed to retire
4 with little cross-examination.
Thaw asked TO be taken away from
the crowd. saying he would tell the
captain and sergeant about the trouble
Sergeant David McCarty who was
a. in charge Of the Tenderioin station
4 when Thaw was brought in. succeeded
y Wright on the stand He says ThaN
gave his name as John smith, 80 years
II old. a student OF Lafayette Place
Washington. when asked why he had
shot White. Thaw replied
II think I had better not say any
thing at present"
"Did you see Lawyer Dan OReins
1 nthe station house that nisht2"
yes"
/, Delmas then made the sergeant con-
fess he. too. had been subpoenad to the
District Attorneys office and require
TO make a sworn statement. The sum-
moning ~ witnesses IN this manner
under John Doe" proceedings has
recently been severely criticized ami
nelmas question indicated that the de.
fense may be preparing to make th'
olgality Of his proceedings an issue 81
the case.
h At this point the court aiourned foi
HN