The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-03-16

him was a ca Ron copy of the state
ment he had dictated IN the presence
of Miss Nesbit
What did you do with the original
copy? asked Mr.eJeFome.
Objection b2- Delmas overruled.
81 handed it to Snydecker or Jacob
don't know which, replied the wit
ness.
What day was It you handed the
original to the men?"
Tuesday. October 81, 1903"
nal?"
2s.'' N' ua.s' es-'ie9's' 'O-
the photographs = negatives and copies
of the original affidavit. He said he
had caused the Photographic copy to
be made.
Thaw write? ?" asked Mr.. Jerome.
No" replied Hummel.
Are you familiar with her writing
from the inspection of things she told
you she had written?''
what became of the original ?"
asked Mr.. Jerome
II handed 1t to Evelyn Nesbit in my
Did you ever see the paper again ?"
Not after Il delivered it to Evelyn
Mrs. Thawi testified that Humuel
see anything but her signature, burned
ii in a jardiniere
The examination Of Hummel pro-
ceeded with much difficulty because
Of the continuous objections of Mr..
Delmas, who now fnterposed the obtec-
ton that the prosecution had not laid
sufficient ground for secondary evil
dence-the existence of the original
being in doubt. Mr.. Jerome said he
had asked Mrs Thaw about the origf-
nal. and she had denied ever having
had it in her possession
Justice Fitzgerald overruled this OBJ
lection along with all the others.
Mr.. Delmas asked Hummel if there
was any one else in his office when he
delivered the original affidavit to
Evelyn Nesbit.
mo" said Hummel.
You say you were acting for Stan
,, ford White in this matter?'
Yes"
''And solely for his beneft?"
Yes
How much did he pay you for the
service?"
Il can't recall"
How long have you acted as Stanford
Whites attorney"
For eight or ten years."
Hummel said he had arranged to
have the Photographic copy made, had
sent for a photographer, whose name
he could not remember and that the
photographer came to his office. A
moment later Hummel said he gave the
paper to Stanford White and White had
the Photographic copy made.
Then you did not send for the pho
tographer?" asked Mr.. Delmas.
mo"
And you did not arrange to have thu
Photographic copy made?"
And the photographer did not come
to your Officer"
mo"
per over to Stanford White?'
THE day after Evelyn Nesbit first
came to- my office and demanded it,"
Did she call more than once?"
Yes"
And you refused-t to deliver the paper
Il did, told heE-it belonged. to Stan
ford White
Did she insist?'
FUNNEL said stanford white had the
Photographic copy made and turned
the plates and prints over to him. He
held the carbon copy IN his office until
District Attorney Jerome and Assistant
District Attorney Garvan called on him
at his office some time in July last. He
gave Miss Nesbit the original after
Stanford White had returned 1t to
| him.
How long have you known Mr.. Je-
rome?"
Twenty years"
when was your last business trans
action with him ?"
IT think I understand what you
mean" replied Hummel, cit was in
| this very court room in December,
19o5.'
And you we're
Eyes 1 was on trial..
"And you were sentenced here on a
conviction obtained against you on an
Indictment for conspiracy presented by
District Attorney Jerome 2"
| Eyes"
I'VE admit the witness was convict
ed of misdeamor, interrupted MT:
Jerome, "but 1 submit the details of
| that humiliating incident are not prop
er cross examination questions.
Justice Fitzgerald allowed Mr.. Del
| mas to proceed.
when you were sentenced, said
marks made by District Attorney Je-
| rome asking the court to inf1ict the
| longest and heaviest penalty possible
upon you as you had been menace to
the community for 20 years?'
Mr.. Jerome renewed his objection
| to this and was sustained.
ct do not want to put the district at
| torney on the stand unless he makes 1t
| necessary said Mr.. Delmas, who then
turned again to the witness and said:
"Now Mr.. Jerome
! A wave of laughter swept the court
| room Hummel, the district attorney
and Mr.. Delmas all Joined in the mer-
riment over the mistake.
| There are two other indictm ents-
for subornation of perjury-pending
against you, Mr.. Hummel?" asked Mr..
! Delmas.
| Yes"
lone charges you with procuring a
| false affidavit to be made in a pro-
ceeding to set aside a divorce decree?"
IT WFFk AS DEF