Evening star., 1934-10-15
court room at II minutes after II

COSClBdu OF COIcot k1Allos M - 1luo
been removed.
court room at II minutes after II
O'Clock.
A short time earlier David r.
Wilentz, attorney general Of New
Jersey, Joined Fawcett and Foley at
the bench. The conference ended q
minute before Hauptmann's arrival,
and the case was called when the
prisoner entered.
Hauptmann was handcufied, shaven,
grim and neatly clad.
His wife arrived in court q few
minutes after the case was called.
Justice Hammer ruled that no more
pictures could be taken In the court
room and that no motion picture reels
of the proceedings could be taken.
Wilentz presented Gov. Herbert H.
Lehman's extradition warrant to the
court. It was entered In evidence, as
was also the writ Of habeas corpus.
Wilentz told the court that he
would be happy to present his case
in accordance with whatever testi-
IllOIly tIlS uc1c1cc Cou3ACC4 AhSAs ~
fit to introduce.
Fawcett offered in evidence an en-
ployment record from the Majestic
Hotel, which indicated that Haupt-
mann was employed there as car
penter at the time Of the kidnapping.
The first witness to be called by
the defense was Christian Frederick
son, short, middle aged and wearing
Spectacles. 3
Fredericksen identified himself Is
the owner Of q bakery and lunch
counter at 3215 Dyer avenue. the
Bronx, where Mrs. Hauptmann for
merly was employed. He testified she
worked for him from june 1879 to
June 1882.
Fredericksen said that In the morn
ing Hauptmann usually took his wife
to the store and had his coffee there.
making the trip In his automobile.
Answer Stricken Out.
The witness. In answer to question
by Fawcett. said he thought Mrs.
Hauptmann was working the night
of March /. 1892. the night the Lind
bergh baby was kidnapped. The answer
was stricken out on motion Of Wilentz,
on the ground that someone told him
it was Tuesday land that was the only
basis for his testimony. so evidently
he doesn't know"
Justice Hammer ordered that the
question be reframed, and Frederick
sen answered that was q Tuesday
night and she must have been working
because my wife was always on on
Tuesday nights"
Aaain Wilentz moved that the
answer be stricken as not responsive.
and the motion was granted. This
also happened q third time.
Fredericksen was questioned briefly
by Wilentz, who reviewed testimony
Fredericksen gave earlier to the
Bronx Court grand jury and the dis
trict attorney.
First Answer Recalled.
weren't you asked by the district
attorney, DO you know that her hus-
band was there on March 17' and
didn't you answer MOP"
The witness said that was correct,
but declared he did not know at that
time it was Tuesday.
, Wilentz then read from the record
of Fredericksen's testimony to show
that during previous hearings he had
told the district attorney he had
been acquainted with the fact that
March /, 1882, fell on Tuesday.
Fredericksen's wife was next called
to the stand.
She testified as did her husband
concerning Mrs. Hauptmann's en-
ployment at the bakery.
did you see Hauptmann bring Mrs.
Hauptmann to the store and call for
her at night?" asked Fawcett.
Always, when I was there" was
the reply.
did you know Anna Hauptmann
was working at the store In March /,
1892"
"Yes," the witness said.
WLcltz Ildu llO Qucctio14o ollo gxA4o
Fredericksen was excused.
Mrs. Hauptmann Called.
The defendants wife Anna was
called to the stand.
"Now, Lnna," said Fawcett, "speak
loudly, won't you?"
81 viii" said Mrs Hauptmann.
She testified that she had been en-
ployed at the Federicksen store on
March /, 1882.
did you and your husband usually
stay at home after you got through
work at the bakery"
"Yes."
"The night Of March /, 1882, did
your husband call for you ct the
store?"
Eyes, he did"
About what time did he csll?"
Il don't remember exactly-when ]
finished work"
Mrs. Hauptmann said that her en-
ployer was in the store that night.
Hauptmann, who had listened with