Norwich bulletin., 1916-05-11
.PUMERANTZ ON TRIAL
 IN CRIMINAL COURT
Testimony Occupied Much of Wednes-
 days Session in New London.

Most of Wednesday mornings ses- sion of the criminal superior court, which is trying Benjamin Pumerantz of New London on the charge of per- given at the trial of his brother, Ma than, in Norwich, on the charge of arson in setting fire to his clothing store in Bank street, was taken up with the reading of testimony of wit neSseS at the arson trial and with ar guments by state and counsel for the defense on the admission of the door and door castings and jambs, about which Benjamin Pumerantz is alleged
 to have wilfully and falsely testified. The testimony at the former trial held here was read by Court Steno- Igrapher Graham. First he read tes- timony of John Mccarthy, janitor of the Shea building, in which the Pum- erantz store was located showing that
 Mccarthy locked up the cellar door shortly before II o'clock when he went home and that he was the only one who had a key, with the possible exception of James P. Shea, owner of the building. In the cross examina- tion it was brought out that McCar- thy had taken two drinks on the night of the fire at El1end's saloon, but he denied having drank in either Two mey's saloon across the street or in | Richards, in the same building.
 Some of the testimony of Charles l Abs DAOW1iB 1OLS01dn Ol the | Engine Co.,, was read, in which he de- scribed the fire as being in the eel l lar. The testimony read that there | was very little smoke in the store when he arrived there with the com
 pany and that a line of chemical hose was stretched through the store to the back door and out into the rear of I the store and down to the cellar. | He was then called to the stand in 1 person and testified that when he got
 to the store the fire was all in the eel
 lar and that it was impossible to get into the cellar because of the inten- sity of the fire. To a question by At torney John c. Geary for the defense, the witness said that he had testified
 to practically the same thing at the | former trial.
 State Attorney Hull then asked to be permitted to introduce the door castings about which the charge against the accused hinges as evidence. They were brought into the court room and Attorney Geary asked that the jury be excused while he argued an ob- jection and the request was granted. 1 Attorney Geary declared that he ob-
 jected to the admission of the door and castings on the ground that they
 had both been changed and neither
 the door nor castings were in the same
 shape that they were at the former
 trial, in Norwich. At that time he
 had objected to their introduction but
 after careful scrutiny by himself ana
 colleagues, Attorneys Hankey anC
 Burrows, he had withdrawn the ob. , jection.
 Since that time, however, the cas-
 ings have been taken apart and dis mantled and they are not in the sam,
 condition that they were when takel out of the store. In Norwich they wert intact. The door is not in the sam, condition. It has been painted, re hung and otherwise altered. The cas- ings were taken apart during the tria , in Norwich without permission of th
 court and he did not think it gooC 1 evidence to introduce them objects un . iects unless they were in the sam,
 condition.
 State Attorney Hull reviewed tn contentious of the state and the de , fense in the former trial. He said tha at the arson trial it was part of tn | defense that the janitor, Mccarthy was intoxicated; the state claimed , that Nathan Pumerantz left his stor . at I2.10 and that at 12.21 by the rec , ords of the fire companies the stor was afire and the fire well advanced. i It had been shown that the fire wa in the cellar but the defense ha ? claimed that Nathan Pumerant couldn't get into the cellar because si
 weeks before the shelving had bee
 nailed up across the door so that nc