New Britain herald., 1925-03-25

Andrews was next called to the stand. His story was substantially the same as that told by Young. An drews carried on all the business with the waiter, giving him the money in exchange for the liquor, according to the story.
 Case of Entrapment
 It was testified that a pint of whiskey was purchased and some of 1t was consumed by Andrews and his party. The remains of the liquoI was presented as evidence. Attorney Danaher asked where the money came from, with which to make the purchase and Prosecutor Charles F. Lewis, who conducted the states case, immediately objected to the question, saying that 1t was not ma terial.
 Attorney Danaher said that it was the clearest possible case of entrap- ment and said that someone had to furnish the money. He said the en- tire proceedings were part of a scheme. Money to procure a viola ton of the liquor laws" was how the attorney for the defense character ized it.
 Attorney Danaher stated that the defense of entrapment was a perfect one. He said that no man with any sense of decency would feel that a man inveigled into crime should be punished for it. He referred to the Wheeler bill which is now before the state legislature and said that if this bill passes, the man who buys liquor will be as much a violator of the law as the man who sells it.
 Nothing more wicked has ever come from the mouths of witnesses" he said in referring to the alleged trapping of Welton. And these men," pointing to the investigators, "gloried in the telling of it." He offered to quote authorities on the subject.
 State Claims Willingness
 Prosecutor Lewis said that there was nothing forced upon Welton. He said that he volunteered to pro- cure the liquor for the two men. In rAponse to Attorney Danaher's charge that it was "nefarious busi- ness," he said "Yes, a hell hole at the lower end of the town," and went on to say that there had been so many complaints that an ihvesti- gation was ordered. He said there is nothing out of the way when men attempt to enforce the law.
 Attorney Danaher maintained that 1t would have been perefctly justi- fable if the men had gone there to enforce the law, but they went to the place to instigate violation which 1t was their duty to prevent.
 Welton, when called to the stand, denied the charges against him. He was given the fine and Attorney Danaher said that an appeal would be taken to the superior court. The appeal was vacated before the ad- journment of court.
 The Partridge Case
 Young and Earl Campbell of East Hartford testified in the case of Jos eph Partridge. The visit to the Sil- yer Lake Inn at this time was made on March ', when they said. quart of liquor was purchased for SIP. Campbell told the story of going to the inn with their wives asking Par fridge if the order of the previous night could be duplicated, to which the waiter is alleged to have replied that he would see. The liouor was brought in about three-quarters Of an hour, according to the witness, It was brought by Welton and not by Partridge, although the latter took the money. Attorney Danaher ask ed of it was true that Partridge did not deliver any liquor to the men. Campbell replied in the affirmative. What" exclaimed the attorney, "did you give him SIP for liquor you never got?"
 No Sale Without Delivery.
 Attorney Danaher contended that inasmuch as the liquor had not been delivered by Partridge, there had been no sale and argued that he could not be held guilty Of the charge.
 Partridge, when called tn the stand, said that he is regularly cm- ployed by the Mcridcn Gas Co. as a meter reader acting as waiter only when he is called on when the busi-