New Britain herald., 1926-11-27
MRS. HALL Will
testify TODAY
Continued from First Page)

(COHtlnueQ from flrSt rage
go home and that he would send
for him at once.
Pfeilfer was sworn next.
Worked on Murder
Pfeiffer said he was employed by
Mrs. Hall on September 26, 1929,
IL days after the murders. e.said
that he hired Di Martini, and that
the detective worked under his di-
rections, being employed to find
out who committed the murder"
did you ever have any knowl-
edge of the existence of Mrs, Mary
Demarest?" asked Clarence e. Case,
of defense counsel, referring to a
state witness who said Di Martini
had offered her $4,000 bride to
keep quiet" about what she
claimed to know.
Il never heard of Mrs. Demarest
until 1926" answered Pfeiffer.
Explained Non-Payment
Regarding Sipel's letters, Pfeiffer
said he sent Di Martini to thank
Sipel for whatever help he had been
to Mrs. Hall by telling his story at
the original grand jury investiga-
ton, and to explain TO Sipel that
Mrs. Hall could pay him nothing,
because 1t might be misconstrued.
I'VE never paid anything to Mr.
Sipel nor anyone else" said Pfeif-
fer, referring to witnesses.
But you did to Di Martini" put
In Justice Parker.
Case then modified the question
to exclude money paid to those en-
ployed to work on the case.
Pfeiffer said that he had offered
his services both to Prosecutor
Stricken Of Middlesex county and to
Special Prosecutor Mott, four years
ago, and that when Stricken asked
for the chance to question Mrs.
Hall. he had offered to absent him
self during tho questioning.
Offered to Tell Story
did Mrs. Hall offer to waive
immunity and appear before the
grand jury OF 1922" Case asked.
Eyes, on the last day of the jury
session she was here In Sousrville
all day waiting to be called but she
was not questioned" replied Pfeif-
fer.
Pfeiffer testified that after the
grand jury of 1922 had failed to
return an indictment he entered
into correspondence with the late
Attorney General McCran and got
an interview with him by telegram
for April Il, 1928.
did you place whatever evil
depce you had before him." Case
asked.
Il did," replied Pfeiffer.
Pfeiffer then produced copies of
a number of letters which Pfeiffer
said he had written the attorney
general and which were reported
missing from Trenton files. He also
had copies of McCran's replies.
Are you going to offer these In
evidence?" the court asked.
YES" said Case.
II shall oppose them as self
serving declarations" Simpson an
nounced.
Tried to Reopen Case
Arguing for the admission of the
letters, Case said: Zone of the at
tacks made by the state on the de-
PENDANTS was that they did moth
ing to help the authorities nor to
apprehend the perpetrators of this
terrible crime. The state has at
tempted to besmirch the charac-
tiers OF the defendants by saying
that they dragged a red herring
across the trail OF the investigation.
We seek to introduce these letters
to show that we sought to reopen
the investigation ourselves"
Case maintained that the defense
had a right to answer the "innuen-
does and insinuations" made by the
prosecution during the trial. Simp-
son interrupted with the charge that
Case was trying to throw smoke
screen" about the trial, and accused
the defense counsel of making
stump speech" Case objected siren
uously to this. The argument grew
more heated, until finally Judge
Parker ordered the jury taken from
the court room.
Jury Is Excused
When the jury had been taken
from the room, Case asked the court
if the defense could not be protected
from the personal remarks of Simp-
son. Judge Parker told him to pass
over the subject of personalities and
confine his argument to the admis-
sion of the letters. Case then told
the court that tho situation making
it necessary for the defense to prove
that it sought to solve the crime was
created by the state itself, and there
fore tho defense had right to intro
duce the letter to relieve itself of
the onus placed on it by the state.
IF we can't prove that VIC asked
that matter be reopcned-w what posi-
ton are we in against these insinu-
ations?" asked Case.