The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1908-01-23
EVELYN TELLS STORY
jerome Fails In His Efforts 10
Bar It.
A GRUELLING EXAMINATION
Mrs. Thaw's Story Was Broken Into
Bits By Constant Objections From
Prosecutor - Evelyn Matched Wits
Wifb - -,


New York. Jan. 21.-Mrs. EVELYN
Nesbit Thaw told her story for the
second time. The repetition lacked
the vitality of the first recital. but the
great crowd in the courtroom where
her husband. Harry X Thaw. is on
trial for the killing Of Stanford White.
listened intently 10 every word Jus
tice Bowling had ruled that he found
no warrant in the law for closing the
doors against the public. and there
was a great Clamor for admittance
from a throng which hung about the
building District Attorney Jerome
falling in his move to exclude specta-
tors. took occasion when II came his
turn to cross-examine the witness TO
bring out all OF the details Of the first
trial which Mr.. Littleton. OF the de-
fense, had omitted on his direct in
quiry Of the witness. Mr. Jerome also
sought 10 block Mrs. Thaws testi-
mony In its entirety on the ground
that a conversation which occurred
three years before the tragedy could
not have any bearing on Thaw's men
tai condition the night of the homi-
eide. Justice Bowling overruled the
! objection.
Mrs Thaw WAS on the stand all day
and Mr. Jerome announced. when ad.
tournment was taken. that his cross
examination would occupy a greater
part Of another session.
Mrs Thaw's story was broken into
bits by constantly repeated objections
from the prosecutor. who sought TO
exclude all details on the ground Of
immateriality. The frequent objec-
tons led Justice Bowling to request
Mr.. Llttleton TO cut his examination
as short as possible. Mr.. Littleton
took this course only 20 find that on
cross-examination Mr.. Jerome in.
sisted upon reading from last years
record nearly every word the witness
had then uttered. He did this under
the privilege OF framing new Ques-
tions.
Mr.. Littleton objected to #. declar-
ing that the district attorney. by
reading the former testimony in a
disagreeable manner. was trying TO
discredit the witness in the eyes OF the
JtAg Nntn nC uOl
in any way by a direct question. Mr..
Jerome made no attempt to disguise
tone of complete contempt in read
ing the testimony Contempt also
Characterized most OF the questions he
put 10 the witness. whom he attacked
In the loudest voice ne has yet used
at the trial. Mr.. Jerome plunged at
once into the more intimate details
OF the testimony. and made no delicate
choice Of words In framing his inter-
rogations.
Mrs Thaw matched wits against
both District Attorney Jerome and
his assistant. Mr.. Garvin. who was
ever at his chiefs elbow with new sug.
gestions. She fenced with them as
skilfuly as she did n year ago. and at
times reflected the mood Of the dis
trict attorney by answering him in a
voice pitched in as loud a key as his
own. The prosecutors pitiless and
aggressive questions often struck fire.
and once when Mr.. Jerome demanded
to know II the young woman had told
Thaw certain things. she replied
hotly:
Eyes. l told him. but ! didn't use
the language you are using"
Don't argue with me. madame" I"
shouted Jerome. who then had the
reply stricken from the records.
But one new feature appeared in the
testimony of the witness. This was
when she told about Thaw swallowing
the contents of a bottle of laudanum
at Monte Carlo, in 1904. In an attempt
to end his life. Previously TO this, at
the Grand Hotel in New York Thaw
had talked of suicide. his wife declared,
and had suggested that she also should
take poison. as both their lives had
been ruined. Mrs. Thaw said she
humored Thaw at the time and d.
verted his mind She was out OF the
room when he finally toohsthe poison
IN Europe.
'Why didn't you tell us about this
at the first trial?" demanded Mr.
Jerome.
Because Mr.. Delmas said II might
make Harry out too crazy" the wiz
ness retOrfed before the district AT.