Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-03-10
THE PERJURY CASE.
awyers for Defense het With Many
 Reverses Yesterday.

&Wy9XS AVE USACnSS E4cs WAsM SA@A4y
 Reverses Yesterday.
 Yesterday was day for the prose yution in the case for perjury against Willis Vandemark, for almost in every Instance the court ruled against the defense 1t was rather a tedious day and not until Morrissette took the stand ill the afternoon was there any life in the proceedings. At one time there threatened to be too much life and the sherif's gavel failed to subdue burst Of mirth. The court had to rap for order on that occasion.
 MOrrissette was on the stand when court adjourned yesterday afternoon. Once or twice he came near breaking up Attorney Danaher by his persistence in failing to understand the attorneys questions. Once he said he did not understand the meaning of the word with" and then he began to use it with frequency that puzzled the law yer. Ha was being examined about the group picture of the strikers as means of enabling him to identify Van denmark at press hour yesterday. That point disposed of, he said he was brought from his home in Taftvllle by Snerir Farley to Bridgeport. He called him sheriff because everybody called him so. Farley was employed Dy the trolley company, and he told witness he was a sheriff at the time ne took him to Bridgeport and placed him with Merna in the Atlantic hotel and kept them there three weeks. Dur Ing that time he never spoke to Merna about the assault, or how the assail- ants were dressed or looked. He did not know who paid their hotel ex- penses. He insisted that he identified Wfnn00Or, h frac fvn Vandemark Sat in the rear or nearly so. He denied taking up position near the sheriff's desk so that he could See better the men in the court room. And ne was equally 1nsistent that be- lore he went on the stand he ever told anybody that he had identified Vandemark. he had no reason for not telling, only that he did not think 1t was anybody's business.
 He was asked why he thought that way and he said he could not under stand, and then followed a tussle be- tween him and MT Danaher about his understanding of English. Resuming once more, 1t developed that he nudged Merna, near whom he stood in the court at the first trial, when he identified Winnegar and told him of the Identification.
 Then it transpired that Morrissette did not understand the meaning of the word with .sN's' 2. tsE F : :
 Were you with Constable Carnlody when you left the court room ?" he was asked. and he said he was.
 Did Carmody go with you and .er- na to and from Bridgeportr'
 "He did"
 Then do you know the meaning of the word wfth?"
 1sNo"
 The examination continued and after a while the witness was asked: Did anybody go with you from the court room?" E@
 With meF" ue exclaimed.
 'Yes, with, you, said MT Danaher, with an emphasis on the with"
 Witness said that in all his journeys to and from Bridgeport with Merna and the constable he never mentioned to them that he had recognized Win uegar.
 And why?'' asked Mir Danaher.
 Because I did not want to-" was the answer.
 'Why not? he was asked again
 Because one man followed Merna, ] and this man." referring to Vande- mark, followed me with the revolver" The car was lighted. he said, when the assault began. The men outside the car had their faces concealed with handkerchiefs, but accused and Win negar were without any disguises, though they played their part in t. full light of the car.
 Mir Danaher asked witness to de- scribe accused and if he noticed any, thing about his ears. The question seemed to tickle everybody, for they laughed, and the court had to rap for order before the outburst subsided Even the sheriffs gavel failed to re- store order. .-.
 MT Danaher then took witness to the actual assault and witness said he Identified accused as the man who kicked him in the ribs and broke two K of them.
 He was then asked if he had testi- lied at the previous trial that when he was on the ground and the crowd was punching and kicking him, that he failed to identify any one of them. and he replied that he could not say If he had so testified. He would say now that he identified Vandemark and that be said so last June.
 Are you testifying now as to what you testified to last June, or are yoE testifying to what you know now" Witness began to ponder and court adjourned without the question being answered