Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-03-15
BOYS STORY OF ASSAULT
Yesterdays Continuation of the Fa.
 nous Faber Switch Affair.


 superior court there would be a sen satlol, and that explained the fal greater attendance than was at the forenoon session. There were lnany ladies present, some of them strang CTS, and dozens of men hung around the entrance. A few business men were among the audience, but the greater part of 1t was formed of per sons directly interested in the issue
 Charles Thorpe was telling bis story at press hour yesterday. MT Hamilton was trying to get him to | admit there was a vital discrepancy between his present testimony and that which he gave at the last tr1nl. He was sure Vandemark was at the switch, yet In his statement. there are only the names of tho other boys as th" parties who were present there the night of the assault. And no mat | ter what he may have said in that | statement. his present evidence was | the truth.
 '"Then either that or your evidence l now is not true?' persisted MT Ham, ilton.
 "My evidence is true:'' "But tbe names in your statement are the names of the boys, your intti- mate friends. How Is that?' 'T did not know the names of the others who. were In the assault" why did you tell falsehood, thcn?"
 "I,ecause I did not want to say, then .'
 'Wty conceal the nam ss then and tell them nowr" 'I was told I would be used right"
 "Eut Ball was your friend and why did you give him away and not give away the Strikers who were not your friends?"
 T can't say"
 Do you want the jury to under stand that you gave away the names of your friends and did not give away the names of those who were not your friends?"
 'I thought the other boys had made statements"
 "were you not the first to make a, stntement?"
 "No."
 ''Is not your motive in giving away the names of those others revenge"
 "No, I am doing the right thing now. What I told Rogers was right" "Why did you conceal the name of the accused then? He was not your friend"
 "I can't say.'
 You cared nothing about him, did you% ....
 "No sir"
 "You say you were not treated right2"
 "Yes sir"
 "By whomW
 "The strikers / "Is not the motive because you were not treated right, what prompts you to tell the names of those others now, whom you say were up at the switch?"
 ''No sir.''
 "You'd like to see them ger punish ished for something, wouldn't you?"
 ''No. sir" .,- "You saw Ball in an embarrassing situation on the stand this forenoon, as to his motive in telling the names of those others?" tH ,.. .s. .,. .&,. Objected to and withdrawn.
 "When you got on the stand you de- termined you would not get into the same predicament, didn't you?"
 "I did not. Pm telling you because 1t is the right thing to do."
 .You decided to tell right after you went to jail. You never sent word to the strikers that they did not treat you right, did you?" %
 "We heard rumors of what they said about us.' "Where, how and from whofh?
 'I can't say now."
 After you got to Jail you heard the stories. Did you conclude you had not been treated right until after you got to jail?"
 It then developed that the boys were accustomed to spend Sunday af- ternoops in the workshop in the Jail, but this was after they had told their stories to MT Kellogg and MT Meigs.
 MT Kellogg then took the witness and asked him In what way he had done wrong and wished to set himself right. 4...
 "would have done right if we had testified in the first trial,' was his answer.
 This was objected to but 1t was al- lowed and witness said he did wro>'S in declining to testify at the first trial and his reason for not testifying he said was because it might tend to fn- criminate himself. .u..--. ...e.. MT Hamilton took the witness again.
 mark put handkerchief on his facep'
 "I don't think I, did, sir
 GOT if vandemark spoke a. word to the others to put handkerchiefs on their faces" t'~ ...e'. =.
 'I can't say.'' "Did you ever tell anybody so until after you went to jail?"
 "I can't say" .-. twill you say you didT' r. 'I won't say that did" "Why should you refuse to testify at the first trial for fear of incrimi-, hating yourself when you say now you had nothing to do with the as- sault?" s'I did not say that" "Yes you did" Witness previous testimony was l read showing that he so testified. What do you mean? Tn what way would you have done better by tesu- lying" N q can't say"
 If you were innocent why did you