The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-10-07
IN REBUTrAL.
Prosecution in Luetgert Case Weaken
ing the Fabric OF the Defense

CA!lUsU, .tD,. D--lhe testimony IN tne
Euctgert trial yesterday was more i,-
tcrestng 10 the general public than it
has been at any time for the past two
weeks. The dry evidence of the er-
pes gave way To Impeachment evil
dence offered by the state against the
witnesses for the defense who stated
on the stand that Mrs. Luetger, had
Seen seen In the vicinity of Kenosha
within few days after the murder is
said to have been committed.
one OF the strongest features in the
rebuttal evidence was the testimony of
Adam Brinker. a teamster for a soap
factory. 1t was in reference TO the tall
low. grease and Clipped bone which
George Eland said he delivered al the
Factory on May /. and which William
Charles testified was procured as some
Of the ingredients Of softsoap which
was 10 be made for the purpose OF thor
oughly cleaning up the factory Brinker
said he hauled all the tallow and bone
away from the factory May /. lie ex-
planned that il was his duty TO do this
once each week. He conveyed the ma
terial TO soap making firm by which
he was employed. Brinker added that
he knew Mrs. Luetgert quite well. and
had seen and talked with her just prior
TO her disappearance. He said she
talked nationally, and that she did
much of her own housework. This latter
statement was In contradiction of the
story Of Mary Smmering.
Deputy Sheriff Moan told what he
found at the factory on May when he
made the seizure under the foreclosure
He took possession OF everything i'm the
grocery store connected with the fac.
tory. He found among other things
100 boxes OF soap OF different brands
This point was brought out 10 impress
upon the jury that Luetgert did not re-
puire the soap il Is asserted he proposed
making.
Emma Schimpke was recalled, and an
effort was made to show by her that all
the impeaching evidence that had been
produced by the defense on her tes.i-
mony was the result of a misunder-
standing Of her story.
Today witnesses from Kenosha were
called TO refute the stories of the per-
sons who stated positively that they
saw Mrs. Luetgert in that town May 5.
and 5. IL is expected that these wit
nesses will be confronted with the
woman they mistook for Mrs. Luetgert
Several OF the witnesses were not OF
high order Of intelligence. one wit
ness would not believe Scholey under
oath because he said the latter had been
his partner in a saloon venture and they
had quarreled and dissolved the CO.
partnership. William APPEL, Andrew
Larsen, Peter Wagner and other neigh
af .,., a.,
his Identification OF photograph of
Mrs. Luctgert as the picture OF the
woman ne said he saw i'm Kenosha two
days after Mrs, Luetgert disappeared
asserted without reservation that they
would not believe Scholey under oath
Sharp crOsg-questioning by Attorney
Phalen usually brought out the fact that
at one time or another the impeaching
witness had experienced trouble at the
hands Of Scholey.
Gordon Clark who is connected with
the firm from whom Luetgert purchased
the barrel Of potash, testified that he
once explained TO Luetgert that there
was no difference between the different
brands Of Huuyadie water This evi-
dence was introduced In rebuttal of the
story that on the uight Of May Luetgert
scnt Bialk 90 n drug store twice 10 got
Hunyauic water because upon the first
trip Bialk had secured the wrong brand.
The photograph men are having fun
with the case. Yesterday afternoon
Lueteert refused 60 talk into phono-
graphic receiver until contract was
made that would assure him 80 per cent
of the receipts. Talk g. cheap ass a
general thing said he, but my talk
costs money"