The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-05-19

 on the case if they did not know that
 Mr. Siemon was the one who claimed to have done the deed ?'' A They had been workingon it for some time
 @. Are you sure the name was not spoken at the first meeting by Shan non ?'' A. "I do not believe 1t was. [ may be mistaken. The name may have been mentioned at that time. The second time the police brought in the report that there was no evidence to convict Siemon with at the time | o. Then they must have known sswer.
 @. ssDid you ever know before Shannon told you. from any source by hearsay or otherwise that Giemon had caused the death of that man r A .'No sir.''
 that he caused the death Of a man while driving his machine?" sA- No
 The Red Car Enters. e. Then the first that you knew was when Shannon told you ?'' No e. ..wnat length of time elapsed ing?' A. Five days, or 1t might have been week or ten days @. Who reported at the second neeting?" A. Arnold, Rirnaing ham, Shannon, Cronan and myself.
 O. who spoke first of the matter in hand 2'' A. The superintendent told me he had looked into 1t very carefully and the department had no evidence against Siemon and Arnold said the same thing. We decided as there was no evidence to shoW crina- inal liability to let the matter rest
 Q. sWhat was said about the red car 2' A t'At the first meeting Ar r7 ft he partment had was that 1t was a red car filled with stsfdents. Someone who stood on the street, as remember it stated it was a red car-,' e.. Between the first and second meetings what conversation did you never had but one conversation. and. [ said the matter would be investi- gated by the department e.. Are you and Siemon members of the same fraternal lodges ?" A. ..Y es. sir. Corintnian and the Mystic Shriners.'
 After some questions as to the length of tinns that they had been in dividual members of the lodges which Hill could not answer off-hand. the coroner again reverted to the slab- stance of the afadawfts askinE the wit ness if he had not been told the nature of the aff1davits that Siemon had made Finally nettled by the purpose of the question the witness attempted to avoid them but finally admitted that siemon "may have told me some of the things said in the affidavit @. Did not Siemon tell you of the facts in the affidavit ?'s A. was out of some of the meeting. e. tDid not Shannon tell you gen. tlemen altogether that Siemon accused himself of the accident ?" A. He may have stated that
 o What was the reason you want ed them to investigate something you
 Did Not Have Evidence. @. .You all knew about it after
 MT. Shannon told you what he ac- the ahidavits there was nothing to connect Siemon with the case O. s.Did not MT. Siemon say that 1 he causedSthe death ?'' A. Tine su- l perintendent and Arnold failed to get l any information except that shown in l the af1idavit.''
 1 3o. "By what authority did you and l the detectives act when you said there | was nothing to investigate in flushing l and auashing and quelling such case
 where q man had lost his life?" No answer
 i to say that the evidence was insufi- cient when you knew there were au- l thorities that were competent to. pass upon that very feature ?" We l did not have any evidence and under 1 the conditions thought it better to let 1 the matter rest
 | e. sWhere did you find that au-. lthority?'s A sH we had had evil dence to show criminal liability we
 wou1d have gone ahead with the case,
 but we did not have. so we dropped iit.''
 Il z-- l to have notified the coroner that there was such a case 2s' A. Well we did lnot so consider it at the tine-'s l O. If the same principal was to 1 obtain when a man was charged with murder and you and the gentlemen
 you were then in consultation with
 thought because you could not find evidence would you let him go?''
 No answer.
 Why did you not allow a. charge I to be made at this time. and let the matter be threshed out want to know what authority you had to act in. that case with or without author | ity? A. We had no evidence to
 show that he eSiernon) was the man who ran over this man. OeMartino.)
 Coroner. Perhaps if you had to do l the same thing over you would allow the evidence you had to go before
 the authorities and let them deal with it." A. Yes, sir.''
 Denies Knowing Contents of Statement Q. Did you have any further talks with Siemon?.' A. Not until this last 'l time when the matter was brought up last week or so.''
 e. ..Did you have any further con-
 versation after the second meeting
 with shannon as to the matter being fc1osed so far as we were sconcerned.? :? Did you ever congratulate him upon Igetting out of what might have been bad scrape?s, Az No sir.''
 I Here again the coroner referred to the af71davits and attempted to secure l a statement from the Commissioner ] that he was actually acquainted with I the facts in the affidavits which was