Waterbury evening Democrat., 1890-02-05
BRzEz1Nsk1 AGAINST r1ERNEY.

BRZEZINsKI AGAINST TIERNEY.
Witnesses by the Dozen on tho Stand
$3.50 To-Day.
David David took the witness stand |
in the Brzezinski-Tiern case late yes
terday afternoon. He said he was talk |
ing to Brzezinski on the morning of the |
assault. While talking Mr. Tierney |
came along and without word struck
the plaintiff over the head with cane.
He struck him several times and then
Brzezinski grappled with him. The do
PENDANT then pushed the plaintiff against
the car and someone came and separated
them.
Nathan Dikeman, of Leavenworth &
Dikeman, testified that the plaintiff had
purchased $40 or $50 worth Of medicine
since last July. The next witness was
J. J. Egan. He said he was sitting in
a boot blacks chair in front of Bauby
Bros store on morning of assault. Heard
loud cries of murder and police, jumped
from chair, saw Tierney and Brzezinski
engaged III a scuffle. Brzezinski had
one arm thrown around the brake of a
horse car and his disengaged hand was
grasping the defendants throat. He
went between tho two and separated
them. He heard these words used by
Brzezinski: eff had my hands loose l
would break your back" He took Tier
ney down the street and in front of
Bauby Brothers store he (Tierney)
wanted to return to do Brzezinski up.
The witness threatened to lock him up
| if he did so. Witness returned and met
| Brzezinski who said if he had not been
taken unawares, he would be prepared
for Tierney.
DIR Pitkin was called as an expert and
said that case where an abscess was
caused by bruise was rare. DR. Griggs
gave the same opinion, as did DR. Mum.
On cross-examination DR. Mum ac-
lar course in a medical college to obtain
| his diploma.
| William B. Brooks took the stand for
the defense and testified that Brzezinshi's
reputation for truth and veracity was
below par.
DR. j. F. Hayes did not think it prob
able that the plaintiffs injury was caus-
ed by being forced against horse car.
Said Brzezlnski had attacked him mali
| ciOusly in his paper. Lawyers had told
him he could get no redress through the
courts.
Major Spencer testified that Brzezin-
ski told him that he, Brzezinski, was a
sufferer from piles.
Earl Smith, treasurer of the Water
bury Buckle company, was asked what
was the general opinion as to the plain
titf's reputation for truth and veracity
The answer was, bad. Cross-examined
witness admitted that the plaintiff had
criticised him in his paper.
c. l. Tremaine, proprietor of Scovill
house came next. Said that general re-
port as to plaintiffs veracity and reputa-
ton was bad. Cross examined, admitted
that plaintiff had criticised him strongly
in his paper, but said the report was 8
succession of lies.
Dwight Smith, superintendent of
Waterbury Buckle Co, and a deacon in
next. Could not say as to BrzezinskIs
personal character, but the reputation
of the plaintiffs paper was bad.
j. Richard Smith, of the Waterbury
Button company, could not state posi-
lively as to plaintiffs reputation.
Attorney w. H. Pierce on the morn
ing of the affray was in his office talk
ing with Attorney Charles E. Cooley
and Sheriff Tuttle, when the plaintiff
entered. Brzezinski stated that he was
not much hurt, only slight scratch or
his forehead and head. He said TIerney
got the worst of it. Attorney Cooley
corroborated this testimony. Sheriff
futile also corroborated the testimony
and added that later the plaintiff asked
him as regards the cure for piles.
NJ. Il. Maloney of the DEMOCRAT wa
the next witness. His testimony was tt
the effect that he met the plaintiff OF
!. South Main street, shortly after tn,
mill and Brzezinski remarked that III
was not much hurt that he gave Tier
ney more than he received. j. j. Nc
Carthy, reporter on DEMOCRAT and H
NJ. Loomis, of the Republican, followed
with similar statements.
DIR II. F. Gill was then called ant
asked as practitioner concerning thu
) abcess in question. His evidence wa
practically the same as that given by
the physicians who had preceded HIM
Charles Adams druggists clerk at Lake
related his story MS follows: Some time
, he thought before the melee, the plain
tiff was in the store TO hav
a prescription filled for piles
Officer Dean was there at the time ant
the witness related story which tn
plaintiff had told at the time and thu
presiding judge was compelled to cal
order as general laugh resulted from
lawyers and spectators alike.
George Roberts, fire commissioner
! was asked the usual question as to tn
report of reputation of plaintiff said
was bad.
Patrick Woods said that plaintiff ha'
asked him cure for piles, he though
after the encounter with the defendant.
} Clayton G. Andrews, secretary of
lodge of the K. of P, to which the plain
: riff belongs, could not remember as t.
| the nature of application for benefit
: made by plaintiff.
Chris Downey of the American cam
next. Great stress was laid upon on
remark purported to have been said b.
!, defendant and told by plaintiff to wit
ness and by him written up for pub
: LEGATION. The remark was o. you
if you publish any more about me il
, your paper you will suffer for it." Wit
ness could not remember whether re
} mark was made or not, but said h
usually had items correct.
, Thomas H. Hayes and D. H. Buckle
, were next, but could not say anything
Ito be taken as evidence.
John Bergin, saloon keeper on Sout
. Main street, swore that he did not Sc
| the first of the fight, but that he did Sc