Part 2: The Case of the Illegal Sunday Sale

Part 2 of the story posted yesterday.  Link to Part 1 http://tinyurl.com/pedt8r4

TRAIL AND VERDICT

The Sunday law has no support from correspondents from the Waterbury American and Democrat newspaper.  Under the headline of “That Williams Complaint” they commented on the case: “there seems to be the feeling in the neighborhood that the Sunday law, at least at present basis, is unjust to poor people and unnecessary, and that if the legislature desires to restrict Sunday trading and Sunday money making it should strike hire game in the first place and not at comparatively poor and helpless people who have the utmost most difficulty in getting any kind of living at all.” 

The editor of the Seymour Record also wrote “In Naugatuck the prosecution has been started against an unfortunately deformed man who keeps a small store on Cherry Street, for selling a pound of crackers on Sunday.  The fellow, who brought the crackers in order to be witness against the seller, if reports be true, deserves all the execration he will get.  He is evidently one of the kind who will “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel” (worrying about small problems while ignoring larger issues).

The Daily News on Wednesday, July 28, 1897 reported that the borough court was crowded for the trial of Patrick Conners.  Judge Hungerford presided over the case with attorney Kennedy representing Mr. Connors.  The court in the old town hall was packed with spectators for this exciting trial.  Prosecuting attorney Sweeney “did his duty although the case was not a popular one.”

Mr. Williams was the first witness and he testified that he has resided in Naugatuck for 15 years and knows the prisoner by the name of Patsy Conners. Mr. Williams testified that on his way home from church he noticed Mr. Conner store was open, entered, and asked for some sweet crackers Mr. Conners showed him some gingersnaps and the witness purchased a pound of crackers for 10 cents.  Mr. Williams said he asked Conners if he kept his store open all day Sunday.  Connors replied that he did and the witness told Connors that he had no more right than a saloon keeper keep open on Sunday.  Connors reply was “Why don’t somebody complain?” The witness said “Didn’t you read what yesterday’s paper said about it?” Connors replied “we’re waiting for someone to complain to make a test case of it.”  Witness “Are you waiting for someone to complain?”  Connors said “It might as well be me as well as anybody.”  This conversation took place at approximately 1:10 PM on Sunday July 18.  Sounds like Mr. Connors dared Mr. Sweeney to make an issue of him being opened, which he did.

Mr. Williams was the first to testify, which took up most of the morning session.  He identified himself as Ellijah S. Williams, a Naugatuck resident for 15 years.    He stated he knows the prisoner as Patsy Conners, owner of a grocery store.  During testimony, Williams stated that on the Sunday he noticed both Conners and Sullivan’s grocery store open for business.  He also named two other stores but was not sure if they were open, Curtis Market and Grant Grocery.  Williams also crossed the Maple Street bridge and noticed the fruit store at the east end of the bridge but added he “didn’t care if the whether the stores on the east side were open or not” saying it made no difference to him. At the end of his testimony, Mr. Williams stated he thought someone was playing a trick on him regarding the crackers.  He claimed someone had taken crackers out of the bag and replaced them with a brand not sold by Conners.  This caused laughter in the courtroom.  He quickly corrected his statement that the defense may have done this, not the court officials.

Several witnesses testified for the prosecution after Mr. Williams.  First up was his wife, identified only as Mrs. Williams.  She testified she saw her husband enter the store and return with a bundle of crackers.  The paper reports she became “badly confused” during cross examination at which point, it now being 12:30, Judge Hungerford adjourned the court until 2 o’clock.

The next witness was Otis Williams, the son of Mr. Williams.  He testified that he was with his father on July 18th when Mr. Williams entered the store and came out with a bag with the crackers inside.  Otis stated he saw his father eat some crackers and then telling Otis not to touch the crackers he just purchased.   Under cross examination, Attorney Kennedy could not get Otis to recall any other details of that event.

Miss Betty Conklin testified she passed the store on July 18th but did not notice if it was open for business.  Mrs. John Titly testified she passed the store on July 18th and thought the store was open but was not sure.  She stated Mr. Williams offered her 60 cents to say whether the door was open or not.  This comment caused laughter in the courtroom.  A Miss Lillie Titly testified she passed the store and did not notice if it was open.  She was not cross examined by Prosecutor Sweeney.

E.B. Goodyear (a police officer?) and Police Chief Hosford identified the bag of crackers purchased by Mr. Williams.

Testimony ended at 3 o’clock with Attorney Kennedy making a half-hour closing argument and asking Judge Hungerford to discharge Mr. Conners claiming no evidence of a crime had been introduced and Mr. William’s motives in making the complaint were questionable.  While acknowledging the law has been on the books for several years, Mr. Kennedy stated that Williams had probably read the amended law in the newspapers and on the first day of its existence decided to prosecute Conners.  “What were his motives?” said Kennedy. “Look at Williams on the stand.  In the two hours and half in which he has been on the witness stand he has made one of the poorest, most miserable, and despicable witnesses that I have ever met.”

Prosecutor Sweeney argued that the motives of Mr. Sweeney were irrelevant and that the law had been violated when Conners sold the crackers.  In a 20 minute speech, Attorney Sweeney made a strong plea for conviction. 

The ruling from Judge Hungerford was surprising in that he found both little evidence that Conners store was open on Sunday, and that Williams had asked for the crackers and induced Conners to make the sale on Sunday.  Judge Hungerford also stated he is opposed to discrimination in the enforcement of the law, which he said was evident here.  The judge dismissed the charges against Mr. Conners and the courtroom “burst into a hearty applause.” The Daily News article ended with “It is safe to assert that to-night there will be no more popular man in Naugatuck than Judge Hungerford.”

An unnamed person wrote a letter to the editor of the Waterbury American a couple of weeks later and, among other items, accused Naugatuck of developing a new code of legal justice that included not prosecuting any violator of a law unless all violators are dealt with in a similar matter and not accepting evidence from a complainant unless their motives are shown to be unimpeachable.

I found several articles on prosecutions for Sunday Law violations, but none as colorful as the trail of Mr. Conners.