Norwich bulletin., 1921-04-27


 something of rarity for the supreme here Tuesday when the supreme court came in with five a1oeals D be aeari.
 The appeal was taken by Andrew Nor ahan and Ernest Hummer, railroad em- ployes, both of New Lond ,n, who were found guilty by a jury in the superior court of having burg T 'ize New Haven road freight car ol June .s;, 1920 aad were sentenced resp ect'veiy to six months and four months Tn iail. along with George E. Church w.lo Eas given four months jail 'sentence.
 Monahan and Plunncr both testi- fed at the trial but Church did not and Attorney G. Curtis Morgan took the appeal for Mo lahan anj l'mmn CT on the ground that State Attorney H A. Hull. in his afyIme,-t 10 the JUry, had referred to the fact that Church had not appeared on the witness stand and this reference was presudicIal to the interests of Monansn and Plummer n the trial. Judge George F. Hin'n1n, who presided at the trial, made the fo,fowin< finding Upon the trial of he ahove-entiried cause to the jury, the defenlapts Ar- drew Monahan and GT lest Plumlner were produced as with asses for the Geferse and testified.
 2--The defendant George Church Gid not testify in, said cause.
 5-The attorney for ihe state, IT, iis argument to- the iury made reference 1 to the failure of the defense to produce l evidence as to cer:a'r. facts wh:ch were | materially in the cas9, but did not. in l this connection 1irec ly mention said George Church or that .ie had not .esti- | fled in his own behAlt.
 l 4-Counsel for the accused thereupor i made claim that the remarks of the at 1 torney for the state constituted com ] testify and asked that exception there.
 to be noted.
 5-The attorney for the state imme | diateIy protested that he had not com.
 mented on the fact that the defendant l Church had not seen fit to take the
 stan and testify in his own behalf. i 6-The exception of counsel for tht :; accused was noted and the court stated | that it would cover the matter in it:
 charge to the jury.
 7-The court charged the fury con | corning the foregoing matter as follows
 An accused person is not obliged to talk i the witness stand in his own behelf. I he feels that the state has failed tc l overcome the legal presumption of inno
 cence, or for any other reason he de cdes not to become witness, m in ference prejudicial to him can be draw from such failure to testify, common upon such failure should not be made ] and if made should be disregarded b.
 the jury"
 S-The accused were tried under
 joint information without slly objec-
 tion.
 Before the court here Tuesday. At
 torney Morgan argued for the appeal an'
 State Attorney Hull argued against il
 Court came in at 10 o'clock Tuesda!
 morning with Chief Justic Wheeler pre-
 siding and Associate Justices Beach, Cur
 tiss, Gager and Burpee sitting with hin
 Rev J. Eldred Brown offered prayer a the opening of court.
 The first appeal argued was In the cas
 of Mae Richmond vs City of Norwich i } which Miss Richmond was given yer dict for s25, 900 damages for loss of he leg when she was shot in the summer c 1917 by guard at Fairview reservof who fired at the automobile in which l friend had driven her and her mother an
 his wife to the reservoir. The appeal va
 taken by the city Corporation Counst
 Edwin w. Higgins and Attorney Ally
 L. Brown made the arguments for tn , city before the supreme court and At ] torneys Lawrence Lewis and John F , Cassidy, both of Waterbury, argued fo 7 Miss Richmond against the appeal. : The second case to be heard was tn } appeal in the case of Pasquale Oesinie r ,,225 Broad street against Archibald Tol : rance, an appeal taken by MT. Torranc
 from the compensation commissione Orsinie was struck and Had his leg brol en by a motorcycle as he. was crossin
 the road at Montvile to get on a me tortruck instead of the trolley car fc which he was waiting to return hon from his days work at Montville as a employe of Torrance, The compensatio
 commissioner ruled that the injury arc. out of and in the course of his emDlo T ment and that he was entitled to con
 pensation. From this decision the appe : was taken.
 Attorney John H. Barnes argued f, Il Orsinie and Attorney A Storrs Campb,
 for Torrance.
 After the arguments Tn the railro;
 theft case, arguments were made in | appeal of Martha T. Bishop of New .Lo e don who was the plaintiff in a su ' against Belton A. Copp, executor of u V will of Ellen Benham sister of MI y Bishop This was an appeal from pr 9. bate in which the jury of the superi n court sustained the will made by Ell e Benham.
 st Major Hull and his son appear as z
 torneys for Mrs. Bishop and Execut