New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-12-01

sa;d Now send for the police. "ouIC
cot that indicate that she had the sense
Of RIGHT and wrong and knew thal sue
Rad committed a criminal act :.
"No, il would not" persisted the WI!
ross '"That is entirely consistent WI,
The theory that she was acting IN SUP
conscious or automatic state. Inc iae'
Of calling the police might have oee'i
SUGGESTED by somebody else And' h:r
mind still working in this automa'lc
state. may have grasped the suggestion
and followed i out.
The prosecutor scored wcat vas
looked upon as another coup ior Nc
state when he suddenly confronted "
JeIliFe with some of his testimony A.
90 nxnart in the case of Hans Schmidt.
Who murdered Anna Aumrller while IN
a sunnosed state of religious frenzy,
Or. Jolliffe first was asked wnetner
bo was, certain that Mrs. De Sauiles
was in the subconscious state he mad
described at the time she fired the hVe
sbots that took the life OF her divorced
husband. He replied that he was.
"Rut YOU know that Hans Schmidt,
whom YOU had characterized as being
insane later confessed that he had
faxed the experts including yourself
ion,t YOU suddenly asked the prose-
cutor. Al avbat
ooh. heard So" was the somewhat
hesitating reply. -.
"You know that to be the case, don't
vou >" asked Justice Manning, taxing
q hand in the proceedings at THIS polhl.
Syou have read the court proceedings
in which the statement was accepteG,,
hv the higher court, have you not
Eyes" replied DR.. Jollife.
And YOU were the chief expert, were
you not?" -, Lisetf
tho chief expert in that case, Dut dlo
not denv that he was when he was 50
nbaracterized by the prosecution. Al,
tnrnev Weeks Immediately dismissed
tho witness, convinced that he mad
rroved 70 the Jury that the testimony
of experts was not TO be accepted d
Practically all of the morning was
consumed i'm the reading OF Attorney
Iterhart's hypothetical question. No'
orlv his three experts, but the three
Who appeared for the prosecution
Drs Charles w. Pilgrim, Islam Harris
and George II. Kirby-were summoned
70 seats near the witness chair 1T
order 10 avoid the necessity or readihS
it more than once. r
The document, which consisted OF
"A 5oO words instead OF the promised
90 600. was read by Former Judge
Iswis J. Smith, who is associated WIN
Mr.. Uterhart in the defence. Inc
question began in this way:
Assume. doctor, that Blanca Erraz-
urls De Saulles was born near san
tisgo, Chile, April 29, 1894, that IN her
Whereupon a detailed recital OF
ovcrv important event in the lie OF
the defendant, including her supposed
physical injuries. her sunstroke ana
nor domestic woes was pictured IN
III, all-inclusive query. II then con
cluded with these three paragraphs:
Assuming all the foregoing facts
and having in mind your personal ex.
animation of the defendant, in your
oninion was defendant mentally sound
at the time Of the shooting, August 3,
1917?
"Did the defendant know the nature
and the quality of the act she was
committing?
"Did the defendant know that the
act was wrong"
Before DR.. Wight, who then was on
the witness stand. was permitted TO re-
Div. the District Attorney objected that
the question included only the points
favorable to the defence and that every
point made By the prosecution had been
ignored. He asked that the experts be
prevented from answering the question
on the ground that it did nos represent
the truth.
Justice Manning allowed the medical
experts TO reply to il, permitting Dis
trict Attorney Weeks TO correct any
omissions that may have been apparent
in it when he presents his own hypo-
thetical question tomorrow morning.
As a result. the prosecutor planned to
spend all Of tonight drawing up a com.
pletely new question, which ne will
read TO his experts tomorrow before
final arguments are begun.
When DR.. Wight at last was per-
mitted to answer the question he said
that the defendant was not mentally
sound at the time of the shooting. that