Waterbury Democrat., 1901-10-24
LAMOREAUX CASE.
He Told His Own Story in Court To-Day.
DOES NOT REMEMBER SHOOTING

Says His Wife Went Out With Other Men-Expert Testimony Introduced To-day in Regard to the Prisoners Sanity--Mrs Lamoreaux Denied Her Husbands Story That She Went Out With Other Men.
 The criminal side of the superior court resumed business this morning, with Judge George w. Wheeler on the bench When court adjourned last Friday the prosecution in the case CT Peter Lamoreaux, charged with af- tempting to murder his mother-in- law. Kate Frenette, on the evening of June 19 last was closed and this morning the defense. which is conduct l ed by Senator Kennedy, began.
 The first witness called was Mrs Mary Baribault of 59 Luke street. | sister of the accused. She testified 1 that for months preceding the alleged | attempt to murder her brother acted l strangely. He used to call at her house 1 two or three times q week and com plain of his wife's conduct and say I that her mother was trying to break l up his home. She saw him at her | | shooting and he complained in q gen eral way of his wife and accused his mother-in-law of having broken up his home. Witness was asked what his actions were in the last named occa- sion The question was objected to. It was claimed that 1t was on the grounds to show that accused had de- 1 lusions for days before the shooting; | 4l.n4 I, ranf aof no 'The question was allowed and the court stated that the accused's declara- lions should not be taken as evidence | on his actions that followed. Witness ] then stated that he was crying when 1 he entered the house. that he repeat ed his complaints of his wifes ac- tions in going to the theater with par I ties lie did not like. and of her mother l having broken up his home. Witness told him to cheer up and she would 1 help him all she could Witness was in tears at this point and the proceed ! ings for while were stopped. Resun- ing. she said accuseds eyes were
 jumping out of his head, that he was nervous and excitable and in her opin- ion he was unbalanced. Explaining
 what she meant by the last word at | at all himself.
 I States Attorney Kellogg then took I the witness. His questions tended
 to bring out that the accuseds actions
 were only those of man whose wife
 had left. taken their children and bro- ken up home. David Baribault, hus-
 band of the last witness. testified to the same substantially; so did Charles
 Messer. Accused was in the latter's shop the day before the shooting and ! said he would leave town. Witness advised him not to, unless he had money or work to go to. neither ot which he had.
 Lamoreaux was put on the stand. II His story was to the effect that for
 two days before the shooting tooN | place he had been drinking heavily. | One night his wife returned home from
 the theater with an actor and he de-
 manded an explanation. His wife used
 to arrange the window curtains in
 such a manner that he looked upon
 it as a system of signals for persons
 he did not wish her to associate with.
 He asked her if this was so. and she 2 told him that it was none of his busi-
 ness; that she would do as she pleas ed. After they had separated. he used
 to leave the factory where he was
 employed earlier than the other work
 men and go to place where shc
 would pass so that he could see if she
 were accompanied by the persons he
 suspected her of assoclating with As
 for the shooting, he tlld not recall any,
 thing about it; had no idea that he
 had shot at anybody. He never
 threatened to kill his wife and he was
 never arrested before charged with | crime.
 pr Edwin A. Downs of Hartford IoiloWed Lamoreaux on the stand.
 After going over his professional ca. reer, witness said ill reply to oues
 tons that he had been physician in the MluuletoWn asylum for four years and Tor similar period in a like concern | in Hartford. He has been an exnert 1 witness in many government cases He | could recall only one of them the fam ous Jack Crow case. At present he Is a member of the state board of char lties and was president of that organiz- | ation two terms. He was also ndyis | ory physician in divorce case for | which the legislature passed special act of legislation. Coming down to the case in point he said that he inter- viewed the accused week ago to-day and again this morning. Senator Ken
 
 l question occupying one and a half l pages of legal cap. The substance of the question was, What is your opn- ion of the actions of man who has acted as the accused is said to have done and as you have heard from the testimonyY' MT Kellogg objected to the question on the grounds that it did not contain all of the principal state 1, ments in the evidence. That was the question held to be delusions were ac- tual facts. MT Kennedy claimed that I they were delusions. Mrs Lamoreaux
 and her mother testified that they de- fled the accused to produce any of the l men he claims to have seen with his wife and he could not do so. Mrs Lamoreaux testified that she had never | spoken to an actor. not to mention
 walk with one. Her husbands claims
 about the curtains were all nonsense. ] Therefore Senator Kennedy claimed the evidence for the defense was laid
 by the state, by the states own wit Il nesses Mrs Frenette and her daugh-
 ter. Mrs Lamoreaux, consequently it
 was delusions on the part of the ac- :. cused not facts, that resulted in the
 alleged shooting. The question was so
 long that the court decided it was bet | IA, +<, ,aaaf7 if Ua in an1 mass l1nnu par1