The daily morning journal and courier., 1906-06-20
LAWYER DURANY ON TRIAL
BEFORE JUDGE SHUMWAY IN
 THE SUPERIOR COURT.

Charges Are Made by the Grievance Committee of the Bar--CInims Made in Court Yesterday-Accused We'll
 Known as Magazine Writer and
 Ball Manager.
 The case of the grievance committee of the New Haven county bar against Attorney Harold R. Durant of Water bury, wherein conduct unbecoming a lawyer. in getting evidence, is alleged, was started in the superior court yes- | terday before Judge Shumway. The charges are in substance that while acting as counsel for Mrs. Eliz- abeth l.. Lathrop in her suit for a di- vorce from her husband, Edwin U. La throp Lawyer Durant paid one Mrs. Delkescalnp $500 to procure evidence | which would enable Mrs. Lathrop to secure a divorce, The trial will be largely taken up with dispositions ob- tained from Mrs. Delkescamp and James J. Murphy, the two persons em- ployed by Mrs. Lathrop to watch her husband.
 l The first witness was Thomas Walsh, official stenographer of the superior court in Waterbury. He testified that he had taken the testimony in the La throp divorce case and had transcript lof the testimony of Mrs Delkescamp
 States Attorney Williams began the direct examination of Stenographer | Walsh, while Durant sat near Attorney Stiles Judson of Bridgeport. who is handling his case, and made many notes.
 l Before beginning a direct eAamina- tion of Walsh MT. Williams called at l tention to the manner in which Durant Lhad obtained evidenceYin the Lathrop divorce case.
 | Attorney Judson broke in on the states attorney with the remark:
 Are you drawing on your imagina- ton for a matter for argument
 MT. Williams asked Stenographer Walsh;
 "Was Harold Durant present at the testimony of Mrs. Delkescamp?"
 Attorney Judson objected vigorously to this question in a long argument about rules and the defendants rights.
 MT. Williams replied by stating to the court that Durant had not attended court and heard the testimony of Mrs. lDelkescamp as a spectator, but as a man seeking evidence.
 Hence" said Attorney Williams, q claim that the testimony of Mrs. Del lkescamp Is admissible. Her testimony lmay develope into the keynote of the whol cas-"
 Judg Shumway allowed the question land Stenographer Walsh stated that Durant was present.
 "The testimony of Mrs. Delkescamr began March 10, 1905, and ended two days later" said stenographer Walsh. Attorney Judson put this question:
 "Did you make note of the presence of MT Durant?"
 Walsh said he did not
 ''Then you relied on your memory?' asked Attorney Judson.
 "Yes, sir" said Walsh.
 Attorney Judson then quized the wit ness to determine if he noted all the Ipeople in the room. MT. Walsh said he did not
 ''Were you particularly interested whether Durant was there or not?' asked Attorney Judson.
 'You did not know when he came ir or when he went out, did you?"
 The witness admitted that he did not
 Attorney Judson and stenographel Walsh became involved in an exchange of words, when the latter said:
 q am sure Mir. Durant was aboui when Mrs. Delkescanp gave her testi mony. I don't know how long he wa. there. Your question is complicated and misleading"
 'Anyhow," said Judge Shumway, "! would not make finding against tn, respondent on the testimony of Mrs Delkescamp." Judge of Probate Lowe of Waterbur. was next called to the stand by MT Williams. Judge Lowe was attorne! | for Mrs. Lathrop during the divorc, proceedings. He also knew Mrs. Del kescanp.
 He testified that he had met her il Durant's office and that he had talked over the Lathrop case with MT. Durant
 Attorney Williams wanted to know i the judge had met Murphy, Durant Mrs Delkescamp and Lathrop. T have,'' replied the judge. ''What occurred at the meeting" in quired Attorney Williams. Murphy spoke about Mrs. Delkes camp and Lathrop, and Mir Duran
 tried to straighten out 8 confusion c
 dates. Mrs. Delkescamp made the re mark that she would like to see Mir [ Lathrop alone"