Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-02-07
.FLAYS LOPONIO
AS A PERJURER
Prosecutor Declares Alleged
Slayer of Policeman mellow
ern Has Been Lying.
ASKS FOR CONVICTION OF
FIRST.DEGREE MURDER
Defense Declares the Accused
Is, Victim of Police
"Frame-Up."

In an 1mpassioned appeal lasting
Two hours, today, Irving w. Teeple,
counsel for Salvatore Loponio. who
for three days has been on trial for
the murder of Policeman John J.
McGovern, on Crane street, on the
night of October Is last. sought to
convince the jurors sitting in the case
that Loponio was innocent of the
crime despite the apparently straight
aud untangled web of evidence that
the State has presented against him.
This includes his alleged statement,
made in the county Jail, in which he
admits he did the killing.
Mr. Teeple declared time and time
again that Loponio was not guilty
OF the crime and that he was not
present when it took place. Instead,
he claimed. Loponio was In his shoe
shop, Park avenue, couple Of
blocks away from the scene of the
crime. and had undressed and was
ready to go to bed between 1925 and
1890 o'clock. which is about the time
the shooting took place.
Mr.. Teeple started his plea for the
life of his client after Assistant
Prosecutor Frederick r. Lehlbaeh,
who has conducted the case for the
State, had opened the arguments with
a half-hour statement of why the
State expected verdict of first de-
he F.atr taA a on r al
Loponio.
Mr. Teeple went carefully over the
testimony of the State. insisting all
the time that some one else had
committed the crime, and that Mary
Barry, the Kearny girl and William
H. Reilly, the negro, who had posi-
lively identified Loponio, were mis-
taken in their Identification.
He also paid his regards to Roche
fort who turned the damaging state
ment, alleged to have been made BY
I,oponio. over to Detective Sergeant
Walter Godfrey, calling him IAN in
fernal scoundrel." who was led to
write a false statement by some one
else. Mr.. Teeple did not intimate
who he might mean as the instigator
of the statement but in vehement
terms declared that the man who
did instigate it was as guilty as the
slaver of McGovern, and that man
was not Loponio."
The jurymen paid close attention at
all times 10 the argument of Mr..
Teeple, the main gist of which was
who was the man that killed Me
T in
8 He said Loponio had been arrested
because the police had to get some7
- for the crime. and heard that
brio had been seen in the neigh
borhood of the shooting, but before
the shooting took place.
MIR Teeple also attacked the testi-
mony of Miss Barry by pointing out
the fact that though she had testi-
fed she had been walking with an
other girl and young man who had
left her on the corner of Crane and
High streets just before the shooting,
the State had failed to produce the
companions of Miss Barry to cor
roborate her testimony.
Quietly and in convincing manner
Mr. Lehlbach took up the movements
Of Loponio on the night of the muir
der and traced his steps from the
time he left his sisters home. at 10
Crane street, an hour before the muir
der was committed. to his arrest about
four hours later He pointed out that
the identification of Loponio was
completely made by two witnesses
who saw him running away from the
scene of the shooting and paid par
ticular attention to the fact that
Loponio had denied all knowledge of
the shooting until he learned two
days after that Berlingiere and Lom-
bardo, the young lads Jointly indict-
ed with him for the crime, had made