Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1887-1895, 1894-02-28
THE EVIDENCE ALL IN.


Against Officer George X. Thomas.
The hearing in the case against Officer
George II. Thomas was resumed last night
before the police commissioners.
The accused first took the stand and
told of his relations with Mrs Lapalme.
He admitted having visited the woman at
her home on many occasions, but main
tanned that there was no wrong intended
on his part. He went there to talk with
the woman over her domestic troubles.
He denied having been in the house on n
number of occasions testified by witnesses,
and declared that he had never been car
riage riding with Mrs Lapalme.
Colonel Doherty was called and said he
had known Thomas for twenty years,
never heard anything against his moral
efficient officer. A. M. Blakesley, l. g..
Plat, Alonzo Granniss, H. l. Boughton
and D. B. Wilson also spoke of Thomas as
good onicer but, except MI Platt who
once lost a roll of bills which was found
by the officer and returned to him by the
chief of police, none of the witnesses
knew anything special concerning his
moral reputation.
At this point of the proceedings Attor-
neys O'Neill and Cole began to cross-ques-
ton Mr. Wilson, asking whether he would
fraternize with Thomas if he knew the
stories concerning him were true, or
whether he considered him fit man for
the police force. Mayor Kilduff promptly
sat on the attorneys on the ground that
such questions were irrelevant.
Chief of Police Egan, Lieutenant Ban
non, Sergeant Dodds and Patrolmen
Blakeley and Pagan testified to the eff
cheney of Thomas.
A1>ok Nc, T mo
had often told her that she was jealous of
two women and had showed her black
and blue marks on her body, which she
said had been made by her husband after
the story had appeared in the papers.
Mrs Lapalme had told her, last October or
November, that Thomas was the friend
who was watching her husband.
There being no more witnesses, argu-
ments were made. Attorney Kendrick
opened by quoting causes for dismissal
from the police rules, and said that the
admissions of the accused that he had
visited the woman in the absence of her
husband and children was conclusive proof
that his purposes were not consonant with
the peace of the home. A public officer
who visits home under such conditions,
when his name is a by-word, does not de-
serve the confidence of the public and
should be dismissed.
For the defense Judge Root claimed
that nothing immoral had been proven.
The officer might have been indiscreet but
as to anything immoral not particle of
evidence had been produced. He spoke
of the good reputation the accused had
borne. and said that no evidence had been
introduced showing that Thomas had
alienated the woman's affections. He
thought it nothing remarkable that
Thomas, who went to the house to advise
the woman, called when her husband was
away. In conclusion he said: "You can
fine or suspend Thomas. but if you re-
move him you will be doing more damage
to Mr. Lapalme, his wife and children than
if YOU allow him to remain. You will be
doing no injury to the public; an officer
with his record cannot be bad man"
Attorney O'Neill said that nothing pre-
sented in the evidence covered any OF the
causes for which an officer could be re-
moved. under the rules. He said that
nothing had been proven and claimed that
under the law it remained for the prosecu-
ton to prove guilt rather than the accused
to establish his innocence. Mr. ONeill
then vigorously denounced the sensational
papers for spreading the stories and
argued that Thomas should not be re-
moved from the force on a mere suspicion.
Attorney Cole said that nobody disputed
the fact that Lapalme's home had been
broken up and that Officer Thomas was
the cause. Whether he did it innocentfy
or designedly the board would judge. He
said in a case like the present one the
frailties and passions of men must be con-
sidered and told of Thomas present wife
and where the officer found her. making
point that the accused was not man of
good sense in this respect. He admitted
that Thomas was good officer. but said it
was case of good man gone wrong.
Attorney Cole ridiculed the idea of man
who had divorce suit on his own hands
trying to heal the breach in another family.
After hearing the arguments the board
went into executive session, but adjourned
until o'clock Thursday afternoon without
taking any action.