The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-08-01
Interesting Trial
Clinton Shanty
Bosses.
CONSIDERABLE FUN IN Cd.
Legal Wit Promptly in
tered By Judge 81
Other Case

clinton, July 31.-The ouei of who
is the real proprietor OFFS of the
snanties on the metronoli ;eservoir,
cut an important figure district
court this morning beforedge c. G.
Stone
Ihe undesirable honor finally in
nlcted upon Luigi Ronb who was
the defendant against rye of keep
ing beer with intent ton.
The police had not, fhey ordinar-
Iy DO, arrested the mafho was deal
ing out the beer, buick Luigi, be-
cause he was the pfietor of the
pace, or told them Il he was when
they raided the shy, Sunday, a
week ago.
Inc choice lay bet4n Busch broth
ers, who are contrars on a portion
q the construction the dam, Chas.
Romano, brotherf the defendant
ana reputed keel of the commits
sary, and Luigi, thlefendant.
Luigi was convid on his own evil
oence, which the art selected as the
only thing tangfbiin a mass of con-
fioting stories.
Luigi was repsented by Attorney
David I. WalshJonathan D. Smith
represented the ate.
The states sfy was told by the
police. 1t dealt TIL a trip to the sham
ty that has sohany reputed owners.
Officers Freel. William Johnston and
William Earle tere the witnesses. Of
ticer Freel wd the star witness. 1t
was Officer Eel to whom Luigi said,
IN response tohe question, who owns
the shanty?"
Il do"
Then turing to Charles Romano,
Luigi said: Hand over the keys
This Chars did, and Luigi assisted
the police irppening the door of the
shanty. With, they found a keg of
beer and soe bottles of beer, as has
been told inrhe Spy.
Officer Fret also related that he sub
sequently nd a conversation with
Charles Ronlno, who said that he was
employed byLuigii according to the
witness, at $50 a day.
The story I'D by Freel was corrobo
rated by Johston and Earle, and later
by Luigi hiIself
Luigfs defnse, as it was developed
by Mr.. Walls, was certainly confusing
to the mindspf most of those present.
This was / good many, because a
great deal oil interest is taken in the
commissariesand in the raids the po-
lice have mae upon them. A number
of the best pople in town were in the
seats allottedto spectators.
Luigi is a brennan for Busch Bros,
He is employd from in the morning
until in Intervening upon the work.
Tncnf4I 20 SCI, ON
spectively, tok the stand to testify
that Luigi beaded at their house, which
is at a distane of two miles from the
shanty, and that he spent most of his
spare time in he neighborhood of the
boarding house
Following th9Cassarosn several Ital-
ian laborers of unwritable names were
put upon the Iand. Their testimony
was in a generalway the same,
They all said hat Luigi was a fore
man for Busch Bros, that he went to
the shanty for short periods of time
once or twice week, usually to get
men to work on Busch Bros. job,
They had neverseen him selling goods
in the commissary, and had never
bought any beer of him. When they
bought anything, they did business
with Charles Romano. Charles Roma
no wrote down what the men bought
including beer, upon the time books of
the men. At the end of the month
the money they owed was taken out of
their wages. The witnesses insisted
that Charles paid over the money to
Busch Bros, alleging strongly that
Busch Bros. were the real hackers of
the shanty.
None of these gentlemen could talk
so that all their communiea-
tons were through an interpreter,
Luigi, speaking in his own behalf,
admitted the conference with the Off
GERS, and went through the conversa-
ton with Mr., Freel, precisely as Mr..
Freel had given it, including the admis-
sion that the witness owned the shanty,
but the evidence also included the adj
mission that the witness said at that
time that he was Charles Romano.
An interesting incident in the case
was the effort made by Attorney Walsh
To Introduce into evidence the summons
issued in the action to destroy the let
tiers. In this document, Charles and
not Luigi Romano called 20 show
cause why the beer in the hands of the
police should not be destroyed.
Mr.. Walsh argued that the police
were not clear in their own minds as
to who was the real offender, and that
they, in fact, thought Charles to be the
man,
Judge Stone thought that the matter
might be an error on the part of the
clerk. The evidence was finally not
admitted, on the ground that it was rot
competent until the return of the pa
pers.
In rebuttal, the police put Antonio
Raput on the stand. Raput is a labor
er. He was laborer with a grievance,
too. He had been discharged from the
work by Luigi Romano, his foreman, he
said, because he would not board in
Luigi's shanty.
Mr.. Walsh made an interesting argu-
ment, in which he maintained that
Busch Bros. were the real proprietors
of the shanty, and that it was they who
should be in court. The denunciation
Of Busch Bros. created no little sensa-
ton in the court room, because it is
the fashion in town to ignore the part
that the contractors play in the miser-
able institution known as the "shanty,''
or contractors cOmmissary.
He argued that there was nothing to
~w~a