Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-06-10

The proceedings in the superior court at the trial of the striking trolleymen opened to-day as if there had been no suspension. Everybody was ill the same place occupied by them yester- day when court adjourned. Officer Keegan's direct examination closed at that point and his cross-ex- animation began this morning by At torney Kennedy.
 Upon hearing the shouts he went to ascertain their cause. He did not see Morrisgette until he reached the car barn. He reported at the police sta- tion that night his finding of Merna. Did not know whether or not record had been taken of his report. Merna told him he could identify his assailants. Witness kept no record of the transac- tion of that night. He simply made verbal report to Sergeant Pagan who was in charge at the police station that night.
 Charles H. Healey followed Officer Keegan as witness. He said he lives in New York. On February 26 he was an inspector at the car barn. He took a special car to Faber's switch that night following the car Tennburg and Danes were on. The rest of his evil dence was merely accumulative as to the finding of Merna, his wounds and the condition of Morrissette At present Healey lives at 188 Brewster street. New Haven. Previous to that he lived in New York and later in ! Bridgeport. While in the latter place he stayed at the car barns on Barnum avenue. Prior to February 26 he had been inspector about two months. At present he Is employed by Farley whose business he said is. operator and detective. He was one of the first gang brought here by Farley. He worked for Farley one week in Bridge port and about three weeks in New Ha ven. Since February 26 he has work ed about five weeks and the rest of the time he has beenson tvacation.'
 me next witness was Henry L. Mack, repairer at the car barn. He has known David o. Marsh since November 1. Until few weeks ago he said Marsh wore a moustache. That was all that was required of this witness.
 Mir Williams then announced the close of the states case.
 Hamilton Asks for Discharge
 Mir Hamilton then arose and asked that the jury be excused as he had motion to make which he thought could be made better without their presence. The jury was accordingly excused. Mir Hamilton then asked that on two of the counts the accused be discharged. The first charged them with assault with intent to mur- der and kill Merna and Morrisette on the grounds that there was no compe- tent evidence showing the intent The other count referred to Morrisette. Mr Hamilton said that from the first to the present moment there was no eyi- dence to show intent to kill or murder.
 WOlcott who is not a very credit able witness for the state put it as strong as he could, and he said he heard no one saying a word about kill or murder.
 MT Williams said he supposed the state would claim simple assault.
 MT Hamilton replied that when the state put forth the claim of simple as- sault and the claim of assault with in- tent to kill and murder, they waived their claim to either one or the other. for assuredly they could not claim a conviction on both. The statement that one of them said he had good mind to kill one of these men if he would not give up his job did not show Intent to kill on the part of the Nthers.
 It would be unjust in the highest degree to allow this claim of intent to kill to stand in the complaint. It is not right that it should confront these men all through the trial.
 What is assault with intent to mur- der? It is an intention preconceived In the calm mind to murder. These men did not intend to murder. They may have gone up there to give these men a drubbing or scare them and frighten them away. That is far from intention to murder. As for the stones on the track there is not a scin- tilla of evidence duplicating the ac- cused, not even by Wolcott himself. who seems to be the star witness on tfat side of the case. That count has no right to be dn the complaint. Not a witness testified that the accused put the stones on the track. It is not enough to say that they were put on the track by somebody. 1t must be shown that the accused put them there to keep the count in the complaint He defied the state to prove it was good practice to draw up drag net com plaint with the hope to get some evil dence on some of the counts. MT Ham, slton then moved that the counts be consolidated if it was not the practice 10 dismiss some of the counts at this stage of the case. and that the state should be made to say on what counts a conviction would be claimed.
 NIT Williams replied that even if the accused did not say anything before hand of an intent to kill 1t did not count. If the condition of inc two