New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-05-14
LUSI|GI HAD OTHER WIFE
SAYS He Was Dragged When
He Married Her in 1901.
MOTT SPRINGS A SURPRISE
Man Charged with Killing Last
Wife with Strychnine on
Stand in Own Defence.

District Attorney Mott startled everybody
at the night session of the trial OF MOTIFS
NJ. Lustig. charged with having murdered
his wife, when he rallied out;
Mrs. Lustig please stand up.
For moment there was confusion. spec
tators craned their necks, and counsei ior
Ialstig. who was on the witness staho
under cross-examinatien. protested
II want Mrs. Lnstig. the woman 10
whom this defendant was married at ''e
time he married the woman he is charged
with killing, 10 be brought into court
SAID Mr.. Mott when Judge Foster asked
an explanation.
A court officer left the room and returned
with tail young woman. VINO saiu hes
name now was Mrs. Emily Frederiekson-
Inlstig acknowledged that he had married
her In 1901. but declared that he had peeh
drusged He did not secure divorce be-
fore marrying Rhoda Lustg in 1904
do you charge this woman with having
doped' your asked Mr.. Mott.
She was one of party Of three. and
some one of them did IT, said Lustig.
The others we're Christopher Cherry ana
Percy Gray
But you were able to stand up when the
rsctnr. of the Ascension Memorial Church
in this city married you, weren't your
asked the District Attorney.
Il don't know whether I was or not,
replied J4ustig.
Mrs. Frederickson was not placed upon
the witness stand. Under grueiiing cross
examination by Mr.. Mott. lasting several
hours. Lustis lost much OF the confidence
that had characterized his direct testimony.
He detailed his early life. admitting that
he had been known by the name of Joseph
Davenport In the theatrical business, thst
he had married another woman under that
name. that he served eight months in Il
Pennsylvania prison for larceny and thar
he had frequently duarreied with his wife
and had used prefane language TO her.
He contradicted the testimony Of sew
eral of the witnesses for the prosecution
especially of those who swore he had t11ed
to, procure strychntne at Livingstone's drug
store in 18th street. near Madison avenue
and that he had threatened TO Kill his VIE.
Spero. the witness who said he had heard
Iustis make the threat, the defendant said,
was discharged by him when he ran a l1inch
counter In Philadelphia He attributed
Spero's attitude to spite.
Iustig told of his efforts TO get ply
sician on the night his wife was taken ILL.,
giving the names Of those he had called
on the telephone, finally calling persona lily
on DR.. Plotz, who came to the house and
prescribed calomel tablets. He said he got
the tablets at Livingstone's drug store. and
gave his wife one every half hour, as direct
ed by the physician.
Counsel for the defence stated in opening
that Mrs LustiF had died from spinal men
ingitie, the cause given In the certificate OF
DR.. Phillips who was called in after DR..
Plotz At the same time the defence con-
tends that any strychnine found in the dead
womans organs may have got there through
a mistake of one Of the druggists clerks.
Herman Jashuan, the only one of the
three clerks who is q registered druggist.
testified that the bottles containing stryoh-
nine tablets and the ones containing Gallo
mel tablets we're identical III appea "a nee.
and said 81 mistake might have, been made
in filing DF. Pletz's prescription.
Lustig did not at first recall the date of
his marriage, but taking d ring from his
right hand. he glanced inside and said:
1T was November %, 1904
What ring is that?" asked his counsel.
MY Nife's wedding ring" replied the, de-
PENDANT in a low voice.