The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1908-06-12
Strong Evidence Presented by the Defense in Murder Trial To.
dayCourt Oerrules Objection to hypothetical Question
Which Was Not Entirely Substantated by Evidence
Barnes Neighbors Testify That They
Thought Him Sane

p-ouy yell-known Walla Walla ply
sicians, in answering a Hypothetical
question which recited the heredity in
auonces. the environment and the per-
sonal exreriences of Bud" Barnes, to-
dav unhesitatingly gave it as their
orinior that the man was insane.
Against this testimony, the prosecu-
ton In rebuttal called many neigh
hors and acquaintances of the defend
mt and his father who testified that
they lad considered both Barnes and
his father sane. While two of the same
obysicians testified that on eXamina-
tiou q the defendant they thought him
sane
Not a Fair Question.
Tho hypothetical question, upon
which the physicians based their
statements that Barnes was insane,
was no, entirely substantiated by the
record, but 1t was announced by the
defense that other witnesses would be
oalled who would substantiate every
statement in the hypothetical question.
Prosecuting Attorney Rupp made
Vigorous objection to the hypothetical
question. but was overruled. although
the court stated that it did not consider
the question to have been fairly drawn.
Judge Brents took the position that
the Jurors knew what testimony had
been presented, and knew just how far
the hypothetical question was sub
Stantiated by the record. He said that
if the Jurors did not feel that material
statements made in the hypothetical
question were borne out by the evl-
denoe, they would disregard the
answers of the medical men.
He therefore allowed the statements
of Drs T. P Cannon. E. E. Shaw ana
J. F. Cropp and William Van Patten.
that assuming facts as stated
IN the question to be true. they
considered Barnes insane. to be made
10 the jury.
Barnes More Cheerful.
The defense made a much better
showing than had been anticipated
Judging by the comments heard in the
courtroom. Barnes revived perceptibiy
under the influence of the favorable
testimony and did not seem to be near
iy so worried as he was yesterday ana
the day before. a look of shame over
spread his face when the reputation Of
his father was being discussed ns
counsel and witnesses, but at otner
times he appeared almost cheerful.
Few murder cases have ever been
handled with such dispatch as the one
now being tried at the court house.
Judge Brents convened court TINS
morning at o'clock, and kept continu-
Gus session until IL m., constantly urs-
lns the attorneys to make better prog
ress. Twenty-three different witnesses
We're examined at the morning session.
IN addition to five being called 10 the
stand twice during the session.
Juror Prejudiced?
During the morning session Juror D.
-. Ireland caused a murmur of eX-
ci;emert to spread about the courtroom
by asking the court what was the du-
" Of the juror in case he thought some
UIns hal occurred that was apt |"
Prejudice him in the case. Juror Ire
"ahd'S manner indicated that some
Ning had happened outside the court
room which he thought might have
oe@Flng on the verdict to be reno
'ed' although whether it was that ne
"ad been spoken to by someone in re-
safd 10 the case or had become merely
He1udced by observations he had
"ade was not disclosed. He wanted 10
N"oW if it was the jurors duty to III
form the court.
Judge Brents replied that the pest
p'Hcy would be for the juror to say
~0ulng, and to take things as the!
Come.
Mrs. John R. Gose was the first wit