Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-03-23
WILLIS VANDEMARK FOUND GUILTY.
Kellogg Wheeler AddressThe Jury

ore t00u 0 years.
 true situation, and to that end also that perjury shall not win in this state or else justice shall fail.
 That was the motive that prompted tnem to make the statements, and, though in some details they may differ 1n the main, they agree.
 The evidence as to Marsh's alibi. Mr Kellogg said, was open to serious doubt, for Marsn and his friend said they attend eo nunerous card parties, perhaps two or Infee week, at that time, and 1t was easy for them to be mistaken.
 Mr Kellogg said Mrs Marsh made conrus1ng statements about her first animation that her husband was con- nected with the assault, she saying at one tune that 1t was when he was ar- rested and again that she was told his AAme s.e was in the papers a day or two aAuer Ine assault, and that she subse- Quently denied the latter statement most positively. MT Kellogg read the evidence and Mir Hamilton said it was Just as he eladmed it to be. MT Kel- fogg smiled and said he would make no comment, only that 1t was obvious to Inc Jury which was right.
 1n closing he said Vandemark had not the clement of truth in him and that unqusstionably he was the ring leader in the assault. Thorpe's req. sons for not giving the names of l.e strikers in his first statement were all 100 plain. He was an onlooker at the assaulc and he saw and must have known the kind of men the strikers were. No one could blame him then T1ep< AE, q me men he saw at the switch. This is.a time for a verdict for history. a rlme for the state of Connecticut to snow that perjury shall not prevail.
 1t was noon when MT Kellogg closed. A short recess was allowed then, after which the court charged the jury. He reviewed in beginning the proceedings against accused and the other strikers last June, and that they committed will ful and corrupt perjury.
 Accused at that trial was & witness Tor himself, sworn to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth. 1t was alleged against him then that he was at several certain places the night of February 26 and took part in the assault alleged The burden was on the state in that case to prove what 1t alleged. Wolcott was the main wit ness in that trial and he testified he saw accused at the pool room and later at the switch, and his evidence, 1t is claimed, was material to the issue. 1t Is for the jury to say if 1t was.
 He explained the legal meaning of the act conspiracy even though the act for which the conspiracy was formed did not take place. If the ao- cused took part in the conspiracy it was for the jury to say.
 Accused denied on the stand at the June trial all the allegations against h1mi that he was not at the pool room. at Hurlburts shop, at the switch, or participated In an assault upon Merna and Morr1ssette, or conspired to assault them, or any other employe of the Con- netcicut Railway and Lighting Go, yet there was evidence that he was at tie places mentioned and took part in the assault. You will consider first if ac- cused testified as he alleged. It is sufficient to find that he did so in sub stance, not necessary to show that he testified to all the facts alleged and which are claimed to be material in the domplaint and which were in fact material, and therefore did try to cause a verdict acquitting him and the others concerned with him. You must find that he so testified willfully and Intentionally.
 Had he been convicted the evidence would not have been to them per- jury. There was evidence given to show Mir Marsh was not present at any one Of the places mentioned, and the same said of Warren. The identi- ficatton of any of the persons may de- pend upon the part played by him in the affair or the ability of the witness to identify him.
 Great care must be taken of the tes- timony that says Marsh and Warren were elsewhere. Mistakes are liable to occur when our memories are turned backward upon the event.
 An attempt has been made to in- peach the testimony of Wolcott His own admitted connection with the con- spiracy must be considered. He is not connected with Vandemark in the al- leged act of perjury, yet his testimony must be scrutinized with care. The young men who have testified must be regarded as accomplices of the eight men who were on trial last June. The testimony of accomplices must be weighed in regard to participation.
 There is testimony indicating that the young men refused to testify be- cause they were afraid they would im- plicate themselves. The witness Nor rfssette corroborabed the evidence of the other witnesses of the states iden- tdfying Marsh and Vandemark,
 There is testimony to show that Vandemark could not in the nature of things be at the pool room and th, other places. The evidence of the Paynes Is the evidence of alibis and should be considered carefully The testimony of the druggist does not show when Vandemark got his medi- cine, or if he returned home after get ting it. It showed only the time it was bought.
 The state claims an assault was made upon the car crew without any possibility of doubt and that the ac- cused was identified by the assaulted men as well as others as clearly con- nected with the assault, and the young men show they had no cause to per- jure themselves. The defense claims in view of accused's good reputation, in view of the impeachment of Vol