Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-03-23

one week and turn states evidence the next. They would do more harm J than in any other way possible by f giving encouragement to such as Wol-
 colt.
 The final argument was made by
 MT Kellogg for the state. He saad
 the case is one of the most important
 ever tried in the state and he agreed
 with MT Hamilton that when perjury
 wins in case justice fails. But when
 that is the case 1t is not the end and
 the issue here is whether perjury
 shall prevail He found considerable
 fault with the requests of the defense,
 on the grounds that they were mere
 ly conclusions from the evidence. MT
 Hamilton objected to MT Kellogg dis cuss1ne, them and was upheld
 Court adjourned at this point l The women who have been attending
 the superior court since the Vande-
 mark trial began three weeks ago, lost
 no tlme Tn getting to court this morn Ing, Knowing no doubt that were they
 10 come late their arrival would 0cca-
 sion some commottop, for every seat
 was occupied before Sheriff Dunham's
 gavel was heard on the stroke os 10 o'clock.
 This promised to be the last day of this extremely interesting case, though rather tedious at times. Everything
 was ready for resumption at the usual hour for opening, but Juror William Andrews of Wolcott was i've minutes late and delayed proceedings that
 length of time. Mir Kellogg was
 speaking at the close of business yes | terday, which left him an hour and
 three-quarterS this morning, but he did
 not take all the time allotted to him.
 He began to-day by striking back at
 MT Hamilton, saying it was a case so serious that it could be treated with
 excerpts from "A Trip to Chinatown" "A Texas Steer" and other theatrical
 performances nfgger stories and funny
 stories. It was case at once 50 mo-
 mentous and important that it has to be treated with all the care and atten- ton possible. He claimed that the evil dence of each witness for the state is actually the evidence of all. MT kel- aogg then described the situation at Faber's switch just before the strike. l He said Merna and Morrissette came here in the just right to earn e living, l and were sitting in their car waiting l for another car to pass the switch, when they were violently attacked. They were engaged in the peaceful right of earning a living. just right,
 which no one could deny them, when they were bounced upon and one of them laid for dead on the tracks. Had not MeTnas unconscious body been found, what crime could have been charged against the men who did 1t but murder. Was hot murder in the l minds of the men who left Merna on l the track? What else could have been their motive7 MT Kellogg then went over the evidence of Morrissette directly duplicating accused. Morris sette said he saw accused on the out ! side of the gar following him with a revolver, with only two feet between them. Could there have been any mistake, then, on Morrissette's part In Identifying accused as that man the moment he sRw> him in the court room the first day of the trial?
 MT Kellogg read Morrissette'B evt- dence on this point Morrissette said he saw "Vandemark," and Mir HamH- l ton claimed that he did not show 1t ! was the accused. MorTissette referred to there being two vandemarks among l the accused at that time. MT Kellogg l held 1t was accused who was referred l to: that 1t was accused who was under discussion at the time the evidence was given. and even were 1t not so this was no time to raise an objection. l That time had gone by and 1t must be inferred that accused was the Vande-
 mark who was referred to by Morris Sette.
 MT Hamilton interrupted MT Kellogg
 second time, and dispute resulted l again, Mr Kellogg insisting that the accused was the man who was meant. sMr Hamilton insisted to the contrary, sand said, "You don't read all the evt
 dence anyway"
 | q Mir Kellogg stopped reading, his face
 flushed and turning to the court. said: | .'Your honor, that is an insult" l The court sai1 there ought to be no further interruptions, and Mir Kellogg proceeded. He said the story of Mer- na and Morrtssette was the story of
 '.that arch fiend Wolcott," to quote MT
 Hamilton; the same story as told by
 the "six angry convicts," as MT Ken
 nedy called the boys. though he had
 been their counsel in previous cases. MT Kennedy objected Do the remark l and asked that it be recorded on the minutes.
 Resumtng, he said the evidence of l the states witnesses was practically l the same In all the essential details.
 Referring to Wolcott, he said If it was
 so that a person can ever speak the l truth, Wolcott was the associate of the
 boys and the accused. He was not l offered as a witness par excellence, but as the associate of others whose
 story did not materially differ from
 his And that story showed vande- | mark was the leader of the band of
 assailants. He knew the grounds, for
 he lived there for some time. It was
 only reasonable that he should be, for
 he took the gang by the route familiar to him.
 The defense took objection to MT
 Kellogg stating that Wolcott said in previous testimony that it was Vande-
 mark led the crowd, and the objection | was sustained. MT Hamilton insisted that Wolcott testified in June that 1t
 was Winnegar who put on the hand kerchief. MT kellogg then read from his present testimony showing he testf- fled that was done by Vandemark, and
 MT Hamilton objected. This time the
 court ruled for the state.
 | MT Kellogg was remarking on the