The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-12-22
States Attorney In Address ito Court Announces Con clusion of His Investiga tion Into Death of John De Martfno By Manufac= turer's Automobile.
Takes Police Department to Task for Incidents After the Tragedy But Points Out That No New Evi- , dence Is to Be Cleaned of Facts Attending Death

NOAC0 4S UO DC Grlods46Q OF
 Facts Attending Death
 Criticising the police depart-{ ment for dropping the case sol suddenly and at the same time praising Coroner Phelan for his fearless investigation, States Attoroney Homer s. Cumminess this morning in the criminal superior court told Judge How ard J. Curtis he would not ask for a bench warrant for Carl E. Siempn, the wealthy manufao turer. This means that the prosecution Of Siemon will end
 The states attorney says he has-no doubt that Siemon's car killed John DeMartfno in this city, October 29, 1910. He de- elares Siemon violated the law by not stopping after the aeci- dent but says this offence is not punishable because of the sta tute of limitations which pro yides that prosecu ton must be made within one year of the crime
 MT cun11nlngs' Statement
 The states attorneys address to the court is as follows.
 1T have concluded the investiga.fiol which NI cornInenced some time ago to determine whether or not it was my duty, as states attorney, to take any further official actionM in conn ectTon with the circumstances surrounding the death of John DeMartino am satisfied that DeMartino was killed in the early evening of October 29th 1910. at the corner Of Grove street and Fairfield avenue in Bridgeport by be- ing struck by an automobile driven by Carl F. Siemon; that the fact was known to Siemon and the other occu- pants of the car at the time, and de- hberately concealed from the proper authorities for period Of about two and one-half years; that disclosure was made to the superintendent of the Bridgeport police department by Siemon, on or about April 21 1913, un- def pressure Of fear that information as to his Connection with the matter would reach that department through another source: that after the matter had thus been divu1ged to the police department the investigation which had been going on spasmodicaIIys an the meantime, entirely and unWar- ranta1bIy ceased; that the facts thus placed at the ddspisal of the police department were withheld from the prosecuting attorneys of the city court; and that the matter remained Quiescent until May 5ths 1914. when some Knowledge of the facts reached Acting States Attorney GaIen A Car &I,-- Siemon connection with the matter Mir Garter acted with promptness and good Judgment and after 2. brief 4n- quiry of his own, called the matter to the attention of Coroner John J. Pdas- Ian for further investigation On May 18th, 1914 the later began an exhaus- tive and careful effort to ascertain the factss
 ."The history of the transaction, from the time of DeMartino's death to the time that MT. Carter brought it to the attention of Coroner PheIan is very unsatisfactory and, indeed, discoura ging to those who are earnest ly concerned about the proper prompt and impartial enforcement of the law. The report made by Coroner Paelans in which he made a finding adverse, to Siemon led to the Iatter's arrest upon a. charge of nanslaughter. The case was brought before the city court of Bridgeport and Judge John R. Booth of New Haven was called in to conduct the hearing. This hearing began July 7th, 1914, and covered period of about ten days. Judge Booth evidently gave thought11I at tention to the testimony and, after a careful consideration thereof. dis charged Siemon from custody upon the theory that the probable cause necessary to justify binding him over to the superior court had not been es- tabIished. Ordinarily this would ter minate the proceedings, as it is not usual for the states attorney to in tervene in 8 case where a person ac- .cused of crime has had preliminary hearing before an experienced judge, and where that judge has been unable to find sufficient facts for holding the accused for trial If there is not sui icient evidence to satisfy a presiding judge that probable cause exists, there is not apt to be sufficient evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
 However, the suggestion has been made, with some degree of publicity, that the, states attorney might re open the matter by asking for a bench warrant. If I were satisfied that there had been a miscarriage of justice and that I could correct it, I would not hesitate to follow that course: but
 IContinueu on Page Two4