New Britain herald., 1915-10-05
MANY CLAIM REWARD
 IN THE zEBRIS CASE
Interpreter MainOWski Explains His Position to the Judge
S2,6S6 ALREADY RECEIVED

partment Oppose $2,2OO Going to
 Man Who Assisted New Britain
 Authorities in Prosecution.
 Especial to the Herado
 Hartford, Oct. 5.-Claimants for the rewards for the arrest and con- yiction of the murderers of Rev. Fla ther Joseph Zebris and his house. keeper, Miss Eva Gilmanaitis in New Britain last February, were represent ed at the hearing before Judge Joseph F. Futile in superior court this morn ing by an army of lawyers. Corpo- ration Counsel J. E. Cooper was pres ent to represent the city of New Britain which, through Mayor Quigley and later the common council, offered a reward of $1,OO0. Attorney Walter Shutz, represented the. police department of the city of Wilmington, Del, which claims the rewards to be applied to the police pension fund of that city. Judge B. F. Gaffney appeared for Matthew R. Malinowski, the court interpreter. Attorneys Joseph G. Woods and No- ble D. Pierce of Bristol appeared for Bernard Lynch and George Dob- son of New Britain.
 Other claimants represented were Charles Gray, represented by Clark 5 A. Arnold; Daniel Yosik, represented by Klett &5 Aliing; John Pietuszka of Wilmington; Alexander Krystofil1, represented by Attorney Henry S. Hunt; Walter l.. Wier, of Whining ton, represented by Clark & Arnold; and R. H. Washington, Philadelphia represented by Klett & filling. The application of May Haynes, deceased, was withdrawn by Judge Klett. Adolph Market, of Wilmington, was represented by Josiah O. Olcott, at torney general of Wilmington. Robert F. Marlore, of Wilmington, was represented by Myron E. Pierce of Noston.
 The state which offered reward of $1,000, was represented by Attor- ney w. M. Maltbie. The Lithuanian society, which offered a reward of $20O, was not represented.
 Corporation Counsel Cooper re- quested that all applicants for the , reward be called and the court so ruled. The names were read. Judge Futile ruled that any applicant for the reward not appearing at the hear ing would be barred. Judge Tut tie decided that the court had power ,. to adjudicate all the rewards and it was agreed by all the lawyers present that they would abide by the ruling of the court subject to the usual right of appeal.
 Malinowslxi on Stand.
 The claim of Matthew R. Malinow- ski was first taken up. He was rep resented by Judge Gaffney. After
 
 to his Identification and business, MT. Malinowski told of his connection with the murder case under the au- thority and employment of the states attorney.
 Malnowski told of his suspicious being called to Peter Krakas and Ber- nard Montvid. Krakas was then known as Jack Nelson and boarded on Arch street, New Britain. Mont vid, known as Charles Morris, boarded at 33 Spring street. Malinowski se- , cured a description of the two men February 16. He became suspicious of them from questioning the people with whom they boarded. Montvid disappeared February Il and on Feb ruary 15 wrote letter to Krakas from Waterbury which Malinowski secured possession of. A copy of the original letter now in possession of the states attorney, was read by : Malinowski. It began: Dear friend, why have not heard from your"
 With much detail and very clearly MaIinowski told of his visits to Water bury and to Taunton and Worcester, where he traced the previous actions V of both men, securing Krakas' prison record at Charlestown, Mass. Mali nowslki told of his visits to Whining --ton after the arrest of the men for their crime there.
 Malinowski's story covered fully his whole connection with the mur- der case from the time he was em- ployed by States Attorney A1corn. This related to his tracing of the men from their New Britain boarding places to Waterbury, his journey to 5 Taunton and Worcester also his trip to Wilmington after the arrest of the men and the work he did there in securing evidence, including Montvid's s confession, and finally the return with ,, Montvid to Connecticut and to New Britain.
 Malinowslxi Questioned.
 Judge Hastings, representing the police department of Wilmington, :, cross examined Malinowski concern ing his employment by the states att torney and brought out that Malin- owski had been paid lump sum of money out of which he paid most ' court witnesses. He was employed from February 10 to June 24. Malin- owski could not tell just what he had received without Investigating He admitted that he didn't know where the men were in February.' Asked A,as to whether he knew if the men