New Britain herald. [microfilm reel] (New Britain, Conn.) 1890-1976, 1929-01-24
JUDGE CHECKS UP
girls TESTIMONY
nt Sca1e Win Csdvi1sd
Boy Yw Bit With Stone

BOY Ms Hi Win Slo8
Taking the stand In his own de-
fenss ct the afternoon session Of the
city court yesterday, Anthony Gal.
janitor Of the Sacred Heart schools,
made an emphatic denial Of the
accusations Of five witnesses that he
had thrown a stone and injured
Frankie Czerwinski last April II in
the schoolyard. after the boy had
gone on the premises to pick up a
peggy" that went over the fence.
Cal, who Is being sued for $1,000
damages by the boy for alleged a.
sanlt and battery. 10 the father OF
10 children ranging in ages from ~
months to rs years, one of his sons
being ordained to the priesthood last
spring. Contrary to the testimony
OF children during the morning. Cal
repeatedly denied on direct and
croas-examination that he was on the
premises outside Of the new Sacred
Heart school building at any time
during the morning on April II. The
alleged assault was supposed to have
taken place at or about II O'Clock in
the forenoon, according to the COM
plant. The defendant also denied
that he had ever seen the boy prior
to his coming with his father on the
same day late in the afternoon.
Deny Gal Left School
Four witnesses besides the defend
ant, testified that at no time during
the morning had he left the school
building. where he was busy super
vising the placement of seats In the
auditorium for the afternoon motion
picture show.
The alibi centered about the rear
door OF the new school building,
facing Broad street. A little girl. tes-
trying for the plaintiff. stated that
she saw Cal come out of the rear
entrance of the building. while she
was standing on the back veranda
of the Czerwinski home. which is at
the northeast corner of Orange and
Gold streets The defendant is en-
deavoring to prove that 1t is a ply
steal impossibility for any person
standing on the veranda to see a
person coming out of the door,
which 10 about a foot away from the
corner OF the building, and about 80
PAGES from the end Of the Czerwin-
ski home. diagonally across.
Testimony was offered by wit
nesses for the defense concerning
the different times of departure of
the workers in the building. all hav-
ing left between 11:10 a. m. to
1870, while the janitor himself left
the building at noon. it was said.
Until the departure of the last man.
the janitor remained In the build
ing throughout the morning.
Claims Childrcn Told Truth
In summing up the case. Attorney
Il. J. Monkiewicz for the plaintiff
maintained that the credibility Of
the children's testimony could not
be questioned by the court as their
stories rang with truth and accur-
ateness; that there was no imagina-
fion on their part. when one by one
each testified to seeing Cal come
from behind the building and throw
the stone. They were not capable OF
making up story or surmislng
things, or theorizing. he said. The
facts were not partial, and each
chiid's testimony coincided perfect
~ az to the manner and means the
entire incident took place. He ridi-
culed the story Of the rear door and
the alibi put UP by the defense. at
the same time paying tribute to his
colleague for putting up such
strong alibi.
At this point Justice NJ. A. Sex
ton, acting Judge, asked counsel for
tho plaintiff whether there was any
provocation shown for the alleged
assault, to which Mr.. Monkiewicz re-
piled that such was not necessary In
any civil action. Damage was done,
and that was sufficient cause to
claim damages. Later on Attorney
Z. F. McDonough answered the re-
mark that although it Is not neces-
sary, az his colleague claims. 1t is
rarely left out.
In answer to the argument of the
plaintiffs attorney, Mr.. McDonough
for the defense endeavored to show
his colleague that imagination among
children is more vivid than in grown
ups, that learned judges and psy-
biologists have stated repeatedly
that children are apt to imagine
more readily than a mature person.
He attacked and ridiculed the story
Of the children pertaining to the at
tire Of the janitor. Their testimony
was that he wore blue overalls. red
sweater and a brownish cap. where
as he claims that when he came out
the only time that he came out--he
wore an overcoat. That was when
he was leaving the building for
lunch. On this fact. substantiated by
the testimony Of older witnesses the
defense contended that the story of