Waterbury Democrat., 1901-09-24

late cream. A few hours after he had had a few .'schoOners" of beer. Orbe .worlxed' one part of the city while witness did the other. Senator Kennedy tried to ascertain who en- gagged witness by various ruses. He was asked who paid him for his work and he was not all lowed to tell. He said he was paid 50 a day. He was not allowed to tell who told him to take notes of his travels that day.
 At length Senator Kennedy got very close to the point Witness was asked to whom he reported his work of the day and he said he made no report to any officer in Waterbury. MT Webster, his face as pale as a ghosts, objected but the witness had answered.
 Witness was asked if he made his report in New Haven. MT Webster objected but the question was allowed and again MT Webster turned extreme ly pale. Witness, after a long delay and evident embarrassment asked if he was obliged to tell and being told that he was, said he did not care to tell Senator Kennedy pressed the question and the witness hesitating, evidently embarrassed. Judge Rurpee went to the rescue of the witness and Mir Webster saying that if the state ob- jects the court must sustain the oD- jection. but the court saw 10 reason why the state should object to disclos- ing the identity of parties engaged in prosecuting cases of illegal selling of liquor. The state thereupon objected and the objection saved the witness and his employers.
 Witness at first did not identify Me Clair formerly an agent of the Law and Order league. but when Senator Kennedy referred to McClair and | Orbie when they sat together as the
 ''Siamise twins Fry recognized him. 1 A number of questions were then l fired at Fry but to all the state object l ed and as the court had said, they had l to be sustained.
 1 Orbie corroborated Fry and the ac-
 cused testified that he had never seen
 the detectives before this morning and 1 they could not have been ill his sa-
 loon on any Sunday for he dees not l open on that day.
 l Senator Kennedy, i'll summing up, made an able argument but the prin- | cipal things he said were that if the l witnesses for the state were really hon. l est and conscientious in their work, or l if their employers were. they would l have notified the police of finding Bren- nan's place open. He did not favor the l idea of procuring evidence by spotters l and he was sure the court did not. The l idea of men coming here from New
 York, New Haven and other places and l driving directly to parts of the city | where they never were before and pro- l curing evidence against liquor dealers
 and then driving off again, was not
 proper, unless it is done ill concert with
 the police.
 Judge Burpee said he was not satis-
 fled with the manner of Fry on the l stand. It was evasive. and shifty. A
 ruling of the supreme court has it that the evidence of private detectives un 1 supported is not reliable The fact thai
 both detectives said they had left theil
 notes at home, though they knew they
 may have been wanted in court was 3 singular feature i'll their evidence I Orbie was q better witness than Fry
 he did not try to hide the fact that he
 was private detective. or by whom ht I had been hired. Then again, the local police officer said he was ..exactly'
 sure of the number of the accused's \ place of business. The doubt was
 greatly in favor of the accused ant
 therefore he could not conscientiously
 find him guilty. He was accordingly N discharged This was the only case
 before the court today.