The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-01-06

NEW YORK, January 5.-on the eve
OF the second trial OF Harry X. Thaw,
which will begin tomorrow before
Judge Victor Dowllng. OF the supreme
Court. comes the report that District
Attorney Jerome may atempt this time
to bar the testimony OF Mrs. Evelyn
Nesbit Thaw. wife OF the accused man,
At the first trial this testimony was
allowed to go before the Jury with
tho consent of the District Attorney.
Several criminal lawyers Of prominenos
In their profession have argued this
point with Mr.. Jerome since the close
OF the first trial. and have urged him
to oppose this line OF testimony at the
trial about to begin. These atHorneys
declare vital principle OF law Is in-
volved, and that 1t should go to the
highest courts for determination. Mr..
Jerome has given no definite answer ia
his fellow-menbers OF the bar. and
he may feel impelled to consent to an
other recital of Mrs. Thaw's story t6
prevent an appearance OF Inconsistency
with bis course year ago.
But the representations made to hin.
as to the Importance to the community
at large OF testing the legality OF such
testimony have been unusually strong,
and many of the prosecuting officers
closest friends would not be surprised
|tf he should rise In his place when Mrs.
'rhaw Is called as a witness and con-
tend the admissibility OF her testi.
nony.
Loving Case Discussed.
Young Mrs. Thaw. was allowed to tes.
tify at the Iirst trial upon the theory
that the story told to Thaw In Paris:
In 1909. two years before their mar
riage. had planted the seeds OF te,r,-9
porary insanity in his brain. The
prosecution was not allowed to test
the truth or falsity OF the story. thA
court rule being that regardless OF ita
truth. the Issue had to do solely with!
the effect upon the defendants mind.
Mr.. Jerome offered witnesses who, he
declared. would contradict certain OF
the Girl wife's statement. but they wera
rot allowed to be heard. The prosecu-
tIon had Its recourse in severe cross
examination. but even this was allowed
only on the ground OF testing the credi-
bility of the witness. s
Already the rule laid down In tho
Thaw case has served as a precedent
in another. A former Judge In Virginia
recently shot and killed young man
against whom his daughter had nado
charges OF having drugged her.
he was acquitted on the ground thai
her story true or false had had the ef-
| feet OF lnflaming the parents mind to
an insane degree. The presiding judge
followed the rule set down in the Tha,v
case.
Try Leading Case.
The lawyers who have approached
Mr. Jerome on the subject are inclined
to the opinion that there are vital diff
| ferences between the Thaw case and
that of Wood. which served as prece-
dent at the trial before Judge Fitzger-
aid. The Wood case was one in which
Woods wife told him her father had
been guilty of improper relations with
her before her marriage, and had but
recently sought her again.
Wood. In heated passion. staight-
way emptied q shotgun into his fathar
in-law. killing him instantly.
Mr.. Jerome declines to say what ac-
tion he will take. Ee Is remaining ah,
| solutely silent regarding the line OF
4 testimony he will introduce. but 1t Ia
known that he has secured tnforma-
tion which will permit him to show
every phase of Evelyn Nesbit's trave1s
In Europe before she became the Nm
1 of Harry X. Thaw. IN \ y