Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-06-16

| with Payne about Vandemark's arrest l What it was was objected to. A lega ! battle ensued, MT Hamilton represent | ing the objection. The court in his
 ruling said person may say on the 1 spur of a moment that he could not tel where a friend was at a certain time but after consideration or examination
 could tell. He then ruled for the de
 fense, and Seigfreid Engert was called
 He lives on the Watertowh road, he
 said, and he knew Payne about a year 1 He knew Willis Vandemark ''by 1 sight" He had talk with Payne 1 about Vandemark's whereabouts on the night of February 26. Objection filed
 It was claimed by the state that Payne
 made statements about the point in question inconsistent to what he has testified to. The objection was based
 on the same grounds as the previous
 objection. The ruling was against the
 defense this time.
 Witness said Payne said to him that
 Vandemark was with him up to
 o'clock and then he went to the show.
 This instead of being contradictory was
 conf1rmatory of Payne's testimony, and
 the defense did not care whether or
 not 1t was allowed to stand.
 Wolcott Called in Rebuttaf
 Then Wolcott was called to the
 stand. He said he knew Olin F. Hart
 He denied his testimony that he, wit ness, told him three days before he left town that he had no money. Also that he told him he expected to make a good Doodle and that he had a talk with Sheriff Rigney. He denied the alleged conversation with Lunny about the check and that Lunny took him to the Hotel Waterbury and was questioned about the assault
 MT Williams called for all the con- versation that took place at the hotel. The defense objecfed strenuousIy and won the point after warm argument MT Williams then asked for the conyer- sation with Rigney in which it was said witness was promised poodle, but aga1n the defense objected and the court ruled for them. MT Williams ad- dressed the court on the point of the alleged promise of poodle by Rigney to Wolcott, going so far in his remarks as to anticipate what the defense will claim in their arguments
 MT Hamilton arose and assured the court that the defense will not address the Jury on any collateral matter. MT view was that the state claimed Hart said Wolcott told him 1 that Rigney promised him a poodle, 1 while the fact as MT Hamilton took it, l and which he claimed was the testi- | mony,s sWas that witness said he expect | ed poodle, not that he expected a ! poodle from Rigney. Tn closing he said | that in modern life no one could be compared to George Washington or | Espaininondas, much less the pool l room keeper. The objection was sus- tained
 Wolcott then denied that he told l Hart he was promised immunity or any reward from anybody. Witness said 1e gave. Farnsworth the key of the | pool room two weeks after the strike and that he did not return 1t to him. [ He also denied FarnsWorth's state nent that February 26 was the only evening he had not to pay for pool games. Wolcott said he did not pay Or any games since two weeks after he strike, and Farnsworth's statement hat February 26 was the only occasion le had charge of the pool room was un- rue
 Alexander A. Guinand 1924 West Iain street, engraver at the New Eng and watch factory, said he knew Mrs jl1fford Vandemark and that she asked I jim to furnish bail for her husband the ast time he was arrested. She made o him statement, but what the state nent was was objected to. He under tood her to say then that she could , rove her husband was at his brothers : ouse the night of the assault. :
 Cross-examined by MT Hamilton: He rst told of this last Wednesday to MT Tart, superintendent Of the watch fac ory. He had the talk with Mrs Van emark on May p. He, spoke to her bout fifteen minutes. Would not ' wear that she said she could prove z 'here her husband was that night. He aid no particular attention to the con- v ' ersatfon and was not sure of the exact | used. She said she could rove where her husband was that ight and could prove his innocence. z arrnody Denies Winnegar's Story t Then game Constable Carmody, bout whom so much has been said all lring the trial. Having answered the >ual preliminaries, he said he sat near le dock the first day of the trial, and lat Winnegar sat next to the rail in Il le rear. He denied ever pointing to- p ard Winnegar or in the direction he II as sitting, or that he pointed Winne- G IT out to anybody V Cross-examined by Mir Kennedy. he II id he stood for while near the door A ith Merna and Morrissette He had a ,t noticed Winnegar until he went to near the dock. The first time he st lew Winnegar was when he arrested al m in Middlebury on the bench war G nt. Did not believe he served any IL her papers upon him. Admitted he st Is had Merna and Morrissette in his re the past few weeks, and that he IS had them in Bridgeport, New York, 'ooklyn and Norwich. Denied he Is k lployed by the c. R. and L. Go to n ok after Merna and Morrissette. S hom he is employed by ruled out. V Could not say that Merna and Mor- u 'sette sat near him when he entered ", e court room first or when he sat d, ar the dock, but believed they did. re 'nied he looked about the room for A