The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-02-22
DEATH DECIDED 4 AS AN ACCIDENT
(Continued from Page 1.)


 to Judge Finn a couple of weeks ago, that her husbands death was accidental and that the societies who were named defendants, should pay the death benefits in the policies her husband held as a member of the societies.
 The defendants held that the death was suicidal. The victim disappeared from his home, April 2d. On April 21, George Gillette, IF, while fishing at Bellevue saw the body standing perpendicularly in the water and notified George Topshe, caretaker at nearby Lake, wood. The latter, with the aid of a long ice pole, pulled the body ashore.
 The suit was brought with Att torney Harry J. Spellman and Att torney John Membrino represent ing the plaintiff widow. Attorney William B. Fitzgerald represented the defendant societies. Judge Finn was asked to decide whether the death was suicide or acci- dental.
 Judge Finn says:
 "The stigma which attends death by suicide almost invariably causes surviving relatives to accept any explanation other than suicide as the fact. Natural affection for the deceased and a natural ten- dency to protect his reputation and memory combine to silence accusa- tions of suicide not only from relatives but also from close friends
 ''In this case we have the .un- usual phenomenon of sisters of MT Podsiedlik and a friend close enough to him to be chosen as a pallbearer, not only voicing the suspicion of his suicide but en. deavoring under oath to prove it. Their statements demand the closest scrutiny. Proof of suicide will deprive the widow of money. For her, his sisters have an intense dislike yet their dislike can not actions relative to the testimony are important.
 According to MT Podsiedlik's s sisters and to his friend, Szcze. panski, he told them he was in de- spair and that suicide was the best solution of his woes. He disap- peared after his gloomy conversa- tion with his sisters and on the very day of his talk with Szcez- panski. At the time of the con- versations none of his hearers re- garded his words seriously. After his disappearance none of his hear CTS, so far as it appears, paid any attention to his statements until his dead body was found. If they had believed them it seems certain they would then have communi- cated them to some one and that searching parties would have re. suited. Instead they believed and said that undoubtedly he had gone away to friends out of town. That he had gone to commit suicide by drowning occurred to them for the first time after the chance dis. covery of his body day or even weeks subsequent to his disappear. ance.
 His wife and daughters re- ported his disappearance to the po- lice department day or two after his disappearance. That every per- son who reports to the police disappearance of a relative fears that suicide has occurred is ridi- culous. Considerable persuasive powers are needed to prevent many people from reporting any unex- plained absence of even an hour for fear that something must have happened, and something Is used to include ever, conceivable mis- chance that a terrorized tmagina- tion can invent.
 There was definite proof that 8 severe injury had befallen Podsiedik in December of 1888; that it's re- suits confined him to a hospital; that later 1t resulted in a dizzy spell that made him fall to the street; and that 1t impaired his health to the extent that his doc- tor considered him fit to work only at light labor.
 "He was unoccupied at the time of his death. His presence at Lakewood on a proper errand Is readily accounted for. He had at least one friend in the vicinity of Lakewood. To go to the shores of a lake for no purpose other than an enjoymen of it's beauty Is a most natural course for normal man to take. His weakened phy- sical condition might easily have caused him to fall into the lake.
 Admittedly the burden of es- tablishing suicide death is on the defendants, Suspicion of course can not supplant proof. The Szcese- panski has even less probative value. He regarded Podsiedlik's statements so lightly that he toked with him about them.
 "The amount involved is small. I fully believe the statement of defendants counsel that the de- fendants were generous to their deceased member while he lived and have no purpose now in deny- ing anything that may be honestly due to his widow. Though money alone is in issue in the pleadings the decision of the case must re- suit in either placing stigma or not placing a stigma on the mem- ory of the dead man. This I am most reluctant to do, and can- not feel that the evidence would justify doing the most careful weighing of the evidence and con- sideration of the arguments of counsel failed to convince me that the circumstances point with any fair daRraa fA9 RAQ a0FfQ hleUAas t0