The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1906-06-27
The DURANT TRIAL.
COL. BURPEE TAKES THE STAND
IN THE AFTERNOON

4 IN THE AFIERA DON.
Durant Claims Colonel Threatened Him
During Campaign of '94-ToId He
Must Not Oppose Peck for Senate
Lawyer Also Testifies That He Was
Under a Debt of Gratitude to Mrs.
Lathrop for Aiding Him Materially in
Getting Him . Wife.
1t had been expected that the cross
examination of attorney Durant Of Wa
terbury in the superior court in the
now noted Durant conspiracy case
would be on yesterday afternoon, but
this was postponed in order that the
number of waterbury witnesses might
be heard an disposed Of.
The chief event Of the afternoon was
the testimony of Colonel Burpee Of
Waterbury on the witness stand. After
! the oath had been duly administered
by Clerk Fowler, the witness was cate
chized by Attorney Judson of Bridge
port, Mr.. Durant's senior counsel. He
was subjected to rigid examination.
| One of the chief matters of interest
| elected was the narration by Colonel
| Burpee Of his connection with the cass
and how he came to refer the case to
| the committee of the bar. He stoutly
denied that the sought to have the bar
committee changed it having been al
legged that he had done so in order to
score a point against Mr.. DurAnt, be-
| tween whom and Mr.. Durant there has
been bitter political quarrel. The
change in the bar committee had been
made last fall before the steps had been
taken against Mr.. Durants standing
at the bar
Colonel Burpee also denied emphat-
ically that he had preferred charges
! against Mr. Durant because of the fact
/ that Durant opposed him in the last
general assembly, stating that long be-
fore the legislature met he had written
a letter to Durant asking him to APP
pear and disprove the allegations
against him in reference to the Lathrop
| divorce case.
| Colonel Burpee emphatically denied
the insinuation or allegation that he
had hired Mrs. Delkescamp and Detec-
tive Murphy to testify in the case
| against Durant.
He admitted to Mr.. Judson that GER
tain New York men had been employed
to go around with Murphy for the pur-
pose of having them present at any In
terview Murphy might have with GER
tain New York detectives who were in
terested in the case.
Attorney Judson asked Colonel Bur-
pee if he employed these men, and he
said he did not. He was asked who did
employ them, and he said State Attor-
ney Williams. He stated that he had
made no effort to keep Murphy and
Durant apart in order that the former
should not change his deposition. Mr..
| Judson having intimated that Colonel
Burpee had done this after Murphy had
stated that he was ready to correct the
wrong he had done in his deposition.
Clonel Burpee admitted that Mr.. La
throp had dehied the charges contained
in the deposition, sworn to by Murphy.
Whereupon Mr. JudsQn said, still you
introduce this deposition even after La
throp said 1t was untrue"
yes" said Colonel Burpee.
"As a matter of fact" said Attorney
Judson, you waited until all the trou-
bic up in Hartford was over with be-
fore you presented these charges?"
Colonel Burpee said he had merely de-
layed the matter so as not to compli-
cate matters in the Lathrop case.
Mr.. Judson asked if he didn't so the
limit in having personnel Of the griev-
ance committee changed, and If he
didn't have U C. Church named in
place of Edward f. Cole of Waterbury
Colonel Burpee denied that. Pressed
further by Attorney Judson he admit
ted that he had interviewed Judge Case
regarding the makeup of the griev-
ance committee, and Judge Case had
informed him of his intention to ap-
point a new committee in the fall. Col
onel Burpee admitted that he had
spoken to Judge Bennett a member of
the old committee, regarding Judge
Cole, who was also member of the
old committed. Colonel Burpee stated
that on account of Judge Coles close
relations to Mr.. Durant he would very
likely be disqualified to act
The other witnesses of the Afternoon
were among others a lot of Waterbury
men, among whom Thomas G. Wilton
Mr.. Meyer, Charles M. Davis a meat
dealer; Mr.. Nelson, D. ]. Bahey, a re-
porter Of the Waterbury American, and
Cornelius Hayes a reporter for the
Waterbury Democrat The testimony O
these witnesses was in each case briei
and they with almost unbroken confor-
nifty testified that TIE character of the
deceased, Mrs. Deskescamp for truth
and veracity was bad. There was g
| lively moment of two when an article
written by Mr.. Lahey in the Waterbury
American was offered as evidence. Mr.
Lahey is now or formerly was of thai
city's board of public safety. Attorney
Judson objected to the Whole article be.
ing read urging that only that par
should be read which had bearing or
the case. To read the rest would b,
l A,FtFI fY7.r vnrsAI Al MI