Waterbury Democrat., 1901-12-30
THREE CONVICTIONS.
As a Result of the Stealing from the
 Local Factories.

this morning as it has not been ln l year before. There was not standing room and once it had to be cleared III order that the atmosphere might pc cleared also. The attraction was tue
 alleged copper thieves and the dime novel method of the circumstances leading up to the apprehenslon me tables of the court were laden With
 packages and parcels, all of when smelled strongly. Some of them were open and revealed to the inquisltlve eye a jumbled up mass of things III various stages of manufacture. Ihere were small brass screws, thimbles that |. looked no more like the household ar l ticle than a sparrow does like an l eagle. yet experts called them thlm- bles: brackets, racks and gates such l as casters use There was brass 1n the l coil. the sheet and the chunk, and cop
 per fresh from some roof or from some i factory.
 | Edward Higgins was the first prls-
 oner called. and q young fellow With 1 a mop of fair hair stood up. Such an l innocent looking face with such bad ! record behind it is combination that
 ought to stand by Higgins some day
 There were fifteen counts for steal 1 ing junk against this young fellow. l and he pleaded not guilty ill a yenge1ul voice. as though he had something to | tell of confidence that was betrayed. Timothy F. Mooney was the next
 name called. A young man with very pale face and very dark hair, with q
 budding moustache, stepped up to the stand. He said he was T private de- tectiye and if such is his profession
 he did not seem to have been long i'll it. He told his story in very nery-
 ous and unprofessional way, raising himself on the toes of his shoes, trying to catch the down on his lip with his teeth. and failing, would make q more
 successful attempt with his fingers. Then he would try to pull it down to introduce 1t to his white teeth, and
 would wind up this singular and un- detective like performance with an eff fort to stand on his toes. The trend of his story was that he came here about two months ago with one An
 gelo Jaiametti and opened junk store at 34 Canal street. He did not state
 at whose request he came, but the pre- sumption is that. he was invited by local manufacturers who have been an- moved by petty thieying. He gave his testimony from written notes taken, he said, immediately after each transac tion that formed the fifteen different counts against Higgins. From his story it would appear that he was in l league with some local and informed agency who put him onto the tracks of the easily led and who would fall easy dupes to his influence. It is sim ply case of putting the story of Mooney against that of the accused. Mooney said that he went 'out' one night with Higgins and another young fellow, and Higgins arranged that they should break into the Scoyill Manufac- turing Go plant and also Matthews & l Willard's. Mooney did not keep the appointment. To Attorney Lawlor, who defended Higgins, Mooney denied | that he instigated this plot or induced Higgins to break into Scovill'S. He
 did not deny that he had an encounter
 with the boys one night on Scovill street and that he was whipped by l them. He did deny that he was rolling
 around the street drunk that night
 when he interfered with the boys.
 Higgins's story was to the effect that when Jiametti opened his store he sent for him, Higgins, and asked him
 to help him out. Mooney tried to get 1 him drunk one night on Italian wine in an Italian saloon on Canal street,
 remarking that it was the easiest thing 1 to get drung on that he knew of. Mooney tried to induce him and others
 to break into some shops. He told i them stories that filled their foolish heads with adventures of counterfeit
 CTS, and told them that he was making
 counterfeit money here and wanted all
 the junk he could get hold of. Some times Mooney and his comrade, John
 T. Henry, would stay behind desk
 for hours in their shop and pretend to
 be making counterfeit money. Occa-
 sionahy Higgins and his friends would
 find themselves followed by Mooney
 and Henry. Higgins was found
 guilty on each count and fined $5 and
 costs on each and sentenced to thirty days on six.
 William Dillon was the next pris-
 oner. Essentially the same circum-
 stances formed this case as the first
 one. Dillon said he was never in the l junk shop. notwithstanding that Moon ey and Henry said he was. He said I lie had not been inside of Matthews X, | " lhdld AaStoAJ III LII " yOcl1os T AAO stuff he was accused of stealing was | identified by F. M Stevens, superin- | tendent of that concern. Dillon's 1 father. Pierce S.. testified for him, say ing that while he was employed at Reid X Hughes's he was trusted to the extent of making bank deposits. There were two counts against Dillon and he was fined 5 and costs on each
 and sentenced to thirty days.
 Guy Packard was a watchman at
 the Tracy Bros lumber yard. He was tempted by a roll of old sheet copper taken from a roof and he fell Four times he visited this junk shop His excuse, which he gave through Judge
 Lowe in his plea of guilty, was fam I fly troubles and scarcity of money He was fined s and costs on each of l the four counts.
 The next case. which was against William Emmons, an employe of the City Ice Co, showed that he was Pack ards cat's-paw. He simply took the | junk to the shop for sale and received
 the money, but did not profit one cent by it. Packard stood by this story
 and Emmons was discharged.
 Fideli Gaginario was the last of the
 lot. He was defended by Attorney l Guilfoile Seven counts were charged