Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-06-11
of the Accused.

Judge Thayer opened court promptly at 9:30 to-day. The prisoners and their counsel were in their usual places. The state attorneys, the jury and a number of witnesses were in readiness for another days session of the trial of the men accused of beating the car crew on the Waterville une.
 The first witness to-day was James German, cigar dealer on West Main street He knew the Vandemarks six years and always found them good, decent men and their reputation good
 James F. Gift of Waterville and Judge R. A. Lowe testified in similar terms.
 Wilbur F. Foote. grocer, West Main street. testified for Ross. He knew Brearton twelve or fourteen years. Lived in their immediate neighborhood during that time and knew them to be always well behaved.
 James H. Freney, foreman for the New England Watch Go, knew the Vandemarks six years; Ross since he was a little boy and Brearton ten or twelve years. and their reputation as 1aw-abiding citizens is good. He liv- ed in the same block as the Vande- marks. Since the arrests never heard anything said against them.
 Harry C.. Post, teacher Waterbury Business college, was strong witness for Brearton.
 Mrs Margaret O'Hara, West Main street, testified for Mcclure, directly and in a general way for Ross, Brear- ton and the Vandemarks.
 o. F. Hart's Testimony.
 The evidence then took another turn when O1in F. Hart was called. He testified that he owns the building in which Wolcott had his pool room. Asked if Wolcott left him owing rent Objected to and ruled out MT O'Neill claimed it to show that Wolcott had no money when he left town The question was put in another form and allowed and witness said that three days before Wolcott left he had no money; that he said the boys had gone back on him. He told witness that he had no money. Wolcott said to him before he was arrested that he ex-, pected to make "a good poodle out of testifying. This was about week be- fore the arrest the first time.
 MT Williams objected to this evil dence, but it was allowed to discredit Wolcott
 At the time in question Wolcott said he expected to clear out He did not say anything about selling out to Farley or Wales. As to his character for truth and veracity it is below par. Witness understood sWolcott to say that he had been to the sheriffs office and also to the Hotel Waterbury and that he was wanted to testify, and he said Sheriff Rigney promised him n poodle if he would testify. After tho arrest he spoke of being in very hard luck. He said the boys had gone back on him. The receipts of his pool room were only 30 or 40 cents a day and he did not know where he was going fo get his bread and butter and that be wanted money. He said this, the night of the trial in the city court That was on Monday night and the last wit ness saw of him.
 MT Williams objected and MT O'Neill claimed it because he wanted to prove that Wolcott sold out to the troll ley company. Soon after witness dis posed of the property.
 Cross-examined witness said he is a contractor. He knew Wolcott since he was a small boy. He rented the place to him last December Before that time he was in the drug business. Once or twice he saw the Vandemarks in the pool room; could not say If he saw Winnegar there. Sometimes he would visit the pool room every night in the week, and then he might not visit it in two or three weeks. He thought he saw Wolcott in the pool room the day after thelassault, but did not remember him saving anything about it or that ''the boys had gone back on him.
 Wolcott Expected Boodle.
 As to Wolcott's going ito the sheriff s office, the opening remark was made by Wolcott himself, who said that he was there about a protested check. The officers told him they did not care about the check and then took him to the Hotel Waterbury, where he was interviewed He thought there were detectives behind a screen in the room and he said he expected to ''get a poodle out of it." He did not say where he expected the poodle to come from. He said the officers asked him to turn states evidence in the Water vile assault case. Witness did not ask Wolcott if he knew anything about the Waterville assault because it was none of his business Witness denied saying, ''Why, Wolcott, you don't know anything about the Waterville assault, do you?" He was positive of this. Wit ness had two or three interviews with him, and heard him say he knew some thing about the case. Wolcott did not say to him that the .boys' had gone back on ihinn becauseglDf the rumors that he had gone back on them. Vol colt told him that Rigney tried to gel him to disclose what he knew abou