New-York tribune., 1909-11-11

Is ai'erhoon- At one point Nine. Stein
"eu interrupted anErily. and shouted def
49, that II II was true that she had re-
.e'Ned $3.50 from her lover. Chounard. the
N"" manufacturer, he had made a hundred
tihes That amount from clients whom she
Naa brought him. The testimony Of Mari
e'la Mof. like that OF her son. Alexandra.
VINO followed her on the stand, was wholly
favorable 10 the defendant Alexandra ad-
Hll1ed that the accused woman had been
IN the habit OF addressing him as Thou
aHo that she had kissed him on New Years
Day. lie offered the opinion that Nine.
steinheil had been led TO accuse him
through suggestions on the part OF the po-
ice and the newspaper reporters
fnriher testimony TO the advantage OF
the defendant was developed from the Wit
hesses who followed Among these was .
nurse who cared for the widow after the
murders, who had testified originally that
Nine. Steinheils illness at the time ap-
peaned TO be feigned. To-day the nurse
testified TO the contrary
BoRDEREL DEPENDS WOMAN.
A witness Of much interest was Maurice
Borderel. the wealthy merchant and former
friend OF the prisoner. One OF the motives
alleged against Nine Steinheil was a de-
that she might marry Borderel. The me--
chants testimony was distinctly favorable
10. the accused woman. and ne made an
excellent impression upon the Jury by the
frankness with which he admitted his for
mer association with Nine. Steinhen, de-
spite the revelations which had oeen made
10 him concerning the woman's character.
borderel could not be shaken in his con-
Nlcvon that the woman was wholly inno-
cent OF the crime. He was rather vague in
hls replies when questioned as TO his inten-
lions regarding a marriage. but confirmed
his earlier testimony that Nine. Steinheil
teiephoned him on the morning following
the murders
During his examination. BordereI was
asked whether he had previously testified
that when discussing the difficulties in the
way of their marriage. Nine. Steinheil had
said: 'One never knows. Let US wait
events" The witness denied that he had
so testified.
At one time when the judge pointed out
discrepancies between the testimony given
at the preliminary hearing and that offered
In defence to-day. Nine. Steinheil cried out
that this comparison was unfair. inasmuch
as NJ Andre. the magistrate who heard the
original testimony. was prejudiced against
her.
PLANS TO CHANGE PROCEDURE.
At the conclusion Of the Steinheil case
NJ Barthou. the Minister of Justice. will
propose certain changes Of procedure in the
trial courts OF France. This decision of the
minister. made known to-day was infiu-
enced largely by the criticisms expressed IN
the United States and England OF the
methods no win vogue. through the opera
ton OF which the presiding judge appears
prosecutor. n. BarthOu has been much
impressed by this foreign comment and in
tends 10 take from the president Of the
court the duty and privilege OF ''infrroga-
toire' and confide TO the public prosecutor
and the counsel for the defence the task OF
examining the accused and the witnesses.
He would restrict the prerOgatives OF the
judge to a practice more in keeping with
that OF the courts Of Anglo-SaxOn coun-
tries II is unlikely. however. that any
effort will be made 10 abolish the general
method Of court procedure I'm ali Latin
countries. by which the examining magis-
trate. in an exhaustive preliminary investi-
cation, collects testimony often not strict
ly admissablss under AnglO-SaxOn rules OF
evidence on which the state establishes
its case against the accused. II is the be-
lief Of many American lawyers here that
in civil cases which are not tried before
a Jury the French system permitting the
introduction of indirect evidence and even
the opinion OF witnesses, frequently enables
the Judge 20 arrive at a conclusion more
certainly Just than does the practice of
similar courts in the United States and
England