Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-11-20

noon.
 Immediately after short calendar in the superior court this morning Judge Wheeler decided the question of ad- uniting as evidence Judge Peasley's S notes of the hearing of the cases against the nine boys in the city court and also the confessions they made to Judge Burpee and the police officials. Judge Wheeler decided to admit both Fudge Peasley's notes and the comics Efons. He said the boys took the stand and testified their statements were true. The law does not exclude statements that are voluntarily made, and the reason it excludes statements that are not so made is because they are unreliable and unworthy. Tn the case of Thorpe, the evidence of Detec- tive Rogers and Constable Rigney is on one side and that of Thorpe and his mother on the other. Now, the law holds boys of competent age responsi- ble, and it is obvious that Thorpe knew the contents of the document when he signed it. He was supposed to know. Tn the absence of proof it must be held that the statement immediately pre- ceding the signature was inserted after the statement was signed. There is no such proof. It must be considered that the boy and his mother were alone for some time. The detective says he read the statement to Thorpe. Thorpe Is an intelligent boy and he must have known what was in that statement .t ...,,--
 It must be remembered that the boy,s mother had some influence over him. and if his. confession was the re suit of her influence over him it is to be commended. a I. therefore sFa!l have to find that Thorpe's confession was voluntary.
 In the case of Ball Judge Wheeler said it was merely a question of Ve- racity between the prosecuting attor- ney in the city court and of Ball. He considered Balls, statement voluntary
 1t was large matter with five of The accused who made confessions and their statement under oath. It was claimed that promise was held out by the judge of the city court, Burpee, and that hope still fingered in the minds of the boys. It. was unneces- gary for the court to consider whether tue V AOI LLC ClAy COu1 Is commendabIe. or otherwise. But it might be said, in regard to the conduct of the police officials and others en- gagged in collecting the evidence in this ease that 'ittrwouidN be rtInusl1al to ex-, pect too much nicetyi from them or the highest consideration of delicacy. As suming the claims of the accused are true that they. were induced by hope of Immunity, it is a question whether The judge of the city court had author lty to make good his promise, In law tie boys statements would not be ased unless they broke their promise 10 testify or testified reluctantly or with reserve
 It is admitted that the boys broke their agreement which it is claimed they made with the judge of the city court. They say the first breach was made by the state. That. however must relate to ultimate immunity. That an experienced attorney promised them immunity if they testified in the rity court, is "a matter which could not be determined in the city court, but later. in the superior court An exper- fenced attorney could not have made such a promise. This robs the boys Statement of veracity.
 This matter was of great importance to the boys. There is no evidence That it was talked about between them the night of their arrest, but the the next morning in the ante-room in the city court. MT Durant talked with them there that morning and warned them. They came out singly from the room and were warned by the attorney for the defense and the Judge of the court Therefore, it seems that what they did there and then was voluntarily. They say they did not understand what the judge said. I cannot believe that. That is an afterthought. I therefore find the statements and confessions ad- nissible under the law. admissible anly against those who made them.
 Attorney Hamilton then moved that he statements be ruled out on the grounds that they implicated others. He was overruled.
 ThoTpe's confession was then intro suced and Detective Rogers was sworn to. tell how he obtained it, and he pro- reeded to repeat practically what he testified yesterday. The first time he saw Thorpe was on March %. three Hays over a month from the date of the assault alleged. He told Thorpe that he had evidence to prove he was In the assault while in fact he had none. Witness wrote the confession md put in it only what he thought was necessary for this case. Thorpe said that he did not know what they were going up to the switch for, only what was told him. This was not ill the confession. Witness did not think it important enough to put it in.
 Judge F. NJ. Peasley, the next wit eess, recited in brief the proceedings in he city court against the strikers and tlle accused and that he warned them against giving evidence that might in rriminate themselves after which he repeated the evidence as well as he could recall it, without aid from his notes. at first.
 Detective Thomas Dodds followed Judge Peasley on the stand, and he km-