The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-01-25
.LUETGERT'S CONTINUED STORY
INTO THE BASEMENT OF THE
FACTORY NOW.
Deneen Went After Him Hot and
Heavy In the Cross-Examination,
With But Little Result.

Chicago. Jan. 24.-Adolph L. Luet-
gerts story of the circumstances sur
rounding the disappearance OF his wife.
Louisa last May, We're resumed on the
witness stand today. Luetgert ex-
planned how the stairway door leading
TO the basement had been blocked and
thus, 1t is alleged, excited the suspicion
OF Bialk, the old night Waterman, who.
when he returned with Hunyadi water.
for which he had been sent, said that
he could not enter that door, and he
made use of the elevator door Exactly
as William Charles told the jury, Luet-
CERT said the boxes had been moved
about to give the dogs a chance at the
rats which infested that part of the
basement used as a storage room for
odds and ends.
You had no intention Of blocking the
door against entrance by any person.
the witness was asked
None Whatever; the door was seldom
used"
Luetgert. to better explain, held a
plan of the factory before the jurors
and elucidated his statements by point
ing out certain spots.
Now asked the lawyer, will you
tell me how you provided for your wite
during the year prior to May 11?"
"Oh, when she wanted money. I gave
1t to her, or she took it from my
pocket" smilngly answered the pris-
oner- Shortly before May l, just when
l don't recOllect," Luetgert continued.
she took. $50. She knew 1 would know
who had it
Did you not kiss Mary Chimmering
often?' blandly inquired the interro-
gator, while Luetgert sat straight in
his chair and the spectators looked
greatly pleased.
No, 1 did not" came the answer.
which made the crowd litter. 4 could
kiss my wife if 1 wanted to kiss"
States Attorney Charles 5. Deneen
began the Oss-examinatiOn of Adolph
L. Luetgert at p. m. today
Mr.. Deneen brushed aside the long
recital of the defendants birth. parent
age, twin brother, bOyhood and rise in
life, and went to the heart of the mat
ter piHng question upon question re-
Sardlng the whereabouts and actions
OF Mr. LuetSert during the L hours fol-
lowing $40 o'clock on Saturday even
ing, May 1, 1897. To every question de-
signed to fix the time when anything
was done or how long it took to do it,
the same answer was forthcoming that
he would not attempt to fix the time
The most material advantage gained
by the state was the wide difference in
the description of the appearance of
the vat on Sunday morning as given by
Luetgert and Mr. Charles. Mr.. Charles
said the vat contained tallow, unassin-
lated grease. I've and some soap. Luet-
CERT maintained it was all ''sOapy sub
and that the only difference
between the top and bottom was that
the former was darker cOlOred and
slightly more fluid. He realized the i'm
portance of the point and obstinately
mis- answer that it was Just
soapy substance" declining to state
what it looked like.
The cross-examinatiOn has only be-
gun The direct testimony was. for the
greater part. of far less interest than
IN the former days. Mr. Luetgert de-
tvered his expressed roast of the police
and completed the task of DENYING in
evidence of various state
witnesses. The most important feature
vas his statement that his wedding
ing contained no initials when he gave
I 20 Mrs. Luetgert. 20 years ago this
month He said ne never had seen tbs
'ings which are in evidence in this
rial until shown them III court.