Waterbury Democrat., 1901-08-31
TIE PERJURY CASE HEARD
Prospere St Peter Was Bound
 Over To Superior Court.

His Daughter-in-Law Gave Testimony
 Against Him-Rey Father Senesac
 Was One of the Witnesses Tilt Be
 tween Attorneys Carmody and Web
 ster.
 Before Judge Peasley in the city court to-day, Prospere St Peter plead ed not guilty to committing perjury Thursday morning in the liquor case against Michael Moynihan. The com plaint, as read by Clerk McMahon, who also prosecuted, was very long. Specifically it charged St Peter with testifying '.that he did not remember going into Moynihan's saloon any Sunday during the past four months Mir McMahOn desired to amend com plaint to read that St Peter did not go into the saloon in question on any Sunday during the past few months Acting Prosecuting Agent Webster, however, would not have this, where upon Mir MeMahon said that as "he did not remember was not a specific and positive statement it was very doubtful if the accused could be held. This created short discussion on the probable difficulty of trying to prove whether or not St Peter actually was in the saloon mentioned, and did he remember he was there when he stated on the stand that he did not re- member he was there
 AIr Webster then changed complaint. Mir McSIahon thought it necessary to show that he was the regularly ap- pointed clerk of the court and Mir Webster was sworn to show that MT McMahon succeeded him as clerk, and Mir McAlahon failed to corroborate that statement. Furthermore, the rec ords of the court were produced to re- move all doubt on this point. Then came the question. was the oath ad- ministered to St Peter according to law, and it having been shown that it was. Mir Webster was asked if he had thought it necessary to have asked St Peter if he knew what perjury was and its consequences. This question evoked a brief storm. Chief Egan tes> tified that on direct examination ac- cused said distinctly that he was not fin MOynihan'S saloon ever. and that oa cross-examination he said he could not remember. MT Carmody stated that he did not cross-examine the man, nevertheless the witness repeated his statement.
 At this juncture the Rev Father Senesac of St Ann'sd church Issued from the ante-ro0m and was sworn. He said he. spoke to the accused last Sunday, on his impending. apDeabanee in court; that he, as ked him If thN knew the, nature of an oath and the conse- Quences of giving false testimony. St Peter said he did. Witness said he knew accused was drinking man and that he had taken a drink last Sun- day. MT Carmody objected to this ses- timony, as it filled the courts record with a lot of irrevelant matter. Re suming, the clergyman said that the accused told him that he had had liquor last Sunday. but he did not men ton the place he got it in.
 Margaret St Peter of Hickory street testified that the accused is her father in-law. She lives near Moynahan'S saloon. she said, and that during the past few months on Sundays she saw the accused go into Moynihan's saloon seven or eight times. On Sunday about three weeks ago, she continued, she saw him leave the saloon and de mand money from his wife. He was refused. and he replied that he could get a drink, money or no money. He did not mention where he could get it.
 Last Sunday, during the conversa- ton with Father Senesac. accused said il the presence of a number of people that he would tell in court that 'he had drink in the salOon," meaning Moynihan's, money or no money, and I had it there with Massicotte''
 Attorney Carmody remarked that it could not rennember such a statement. to which Mrs St Peter replied that she had better memory than the clergy man.
 Mrs Prospere St Peter could not re- call anything definite. Regarding the statement the previous witness at tributed to the accused. she said that no saloon was mentioned in that state ment. Under cross-examination she stated positively that since Moynihan took the saloon she did not see her husband enter or leave that place, but she thought that on August IS he told her he had been there. This closed the case for the state. Mir Carmody began his argument. but had not pro ceeded far when he stopped and re- marked to the acting prosecuting agent: "What are you snickering at, Mir Webster?"
 'sI'm not snickering." was the reply.
 Well, I heard you snickering, and I would like to know what the cause was" But MT Carmody did not ascer- tain it. He then resumed his argl- ment. showing that the complaint was a peculiar one because 1t alleged the accused said he did not remember he was in the saloon. Now it may be and undoubtedly was true that ;he man did not remember" Anyway, the evidence of two witnesses were necessary to prove perjury, and there was only one witness. Mrs St Peter, Jr, whose evidence came at all near supporting the allegation. Here Mrs St Peter jumped up. anxious to go on the stand again. She was put aside. Accused was bound over to the au- perior court. October term, under a bond of S1.000.
 Patrick Skien was fined S5 and costs and $1O and costs for intoxication and breach of the peace.
 Tony Rose was charged with as- saulting Alfred Colby by striking him with a stick. Sentence was suspend ed.
 The case against Fred Massicotte was then called. Massicotte was de- feared not guilty for lack of evidence. The St Peters did not testify, not nav t~,xw &I.n nw-fannoo nnfracf him