Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-03-14

lia Vandemark for perjury in the first case for the Faber's switch assault, Ill which he was one of the eight ac- cused, began in the superior court to- day before Judge Ralph Wheeler or New London and a jury. Attorney Hamilton was on hand with the de- fense, but Attorney Danaher retired early and Attorney O'Neill was still too i'll to appear. Attorney O. G. Root sat back of Assistant State Attorney Kellogg, whom he is assisting. The room was fairly well filled, rather unusual occurrence in the forenoon, and ''the boys'' were. kept in the coun- ty commissioners room until court opened Marsh was not present, but his wife was, dressed in black. The purpose of resuming business to-day IS to hasten the trial, the end. of Wmch is not yet in sight.
 Stephen BallJwas on the stand when. court adjourned Thursday afternoon and he was telling of the crowd at the switch Winnegar, he said, heard a noise in the brush and he called out, s.Who's there?" and voice replied, 'sWe are," and Warren and CllHofd Vandemark showed themselves. Wln- negar had a revolver ill his hand at the time. Almost every other minute Mir Kellogg would have witness repeat | the names of those whom he saw l at the switch so that the names of ac- 1 cused his brother. Marsh and the oth- l CTS were constantly in the jurys ears. Under cross examination he said he l left the pool room about S:3O the night of the assault and he saw ac- l cused there. He did not speak to him, nor could he recall what ac- l cused was doing. With downcast l eyes and flushed face he admitted he is now prisoner in jail. He de- nied there were any Inducements or promises made to him to turn state $ evidence and that in jail he Is at work on a steam press. He said he is usually locked up in his cell at 6 | o'clock, but on two nights he was ta- ken to the sheriff's office and kept l thera about four hours. On each of these occasions he was questioned by 1 Attorney Meigs, prosecutor in the city I ing the prosecution of the previous eases. He denied sending for Nh Meigs but admitted sending for the 1 sheriff. The sheriff responded in person and witness said to him "all us fellows are willing to tell all we know about the case" He had not spoken to the sheriff before this and l thought he was in jail at that time about three months. He said he had not spoken to anybody about the case ] up to that time and to the question l how did he know that the other boys l wished to tell their story and all they l knew about the case, he said he had | heard "all around" that it would be l better for them to tell Then he said l that he might have spoken to some one in the jail about it, but could not say positively. Then he said he spoke to the other boys about it and could not say which Of them was the first to suggest telling. Witness statement was taken first. It was ! taken 1n the presence of Attorney Meigs, Sheriff Dunham and the other boys. The latter said they would prefer to see Mir Kellogg before mak- ing their statements. No one said | anything to him about the costs in his case. A woman stenographer took his statement Two nights af- ter making his statement MT Kellogg went to the jail and the other boys made their statements to him. Wit ness also repeated his, at the sugges- ton of MT Kellogg. Another steno- an'apher took the statements. Each G ice four O1. five hours.
 He was asked if he testffied in the previous cases the same as he has in this case. and he said about the same.
 "T'hen Mir Kellogg knew what you had to say?'
 'I don't know"
 ''You told at the first trial all yo,, knew, did you not?''
 'I did"
 'Then MT Kellogg must have known all you had to tellT' 'T don't know.''
 ''Then uid you have anything new to tell Mir Kellogg?"
 'T don't know.''
 'Dfd you tell it differently ?"
 'I don't know.'
 "Did you intend to tell anything different than what you had told here at the last trial?"
 'I did not,''
 "Did you tell him anything differ ent?'' .l7
 'I did not. I don't remember" "Why don't you remember?"
 "Well, the fellows did not come | us"
 Were you mad at the strikers?'' ''Yes, sir"
 "Were you so mad with them that you wanted to find the guilty men?'
 Yes, sir ''
 ''Were you so angry with the striS- CTS that you would tell anything against them in order to convict l them?'
 1T don't know.''
 | MT Kellogg took the witness then and asked him if he was so angry at the strikers that he would tell any l story aCr@sast them in order to convi, '