New Britain herald., 1922-02-21
DIST. ATTY PELLETIER
 ORDERED REMOVED
{Continued From First Pago)

(Continued From First Pago) l removal of q district attorney" said | the court When private favoritlsm and personal aggrandizement are 1 placed above principles Of obvious 1 justice and considerations Of the gen
 eral welfare by T district attorney the
 public good requires that he be re-
 moved" History Of Case.
 l The trial of District Attorney Jos- eph c, Peletier of Suffolk county, be- 1 fore inc full bench of the Massachu-
 setts supreme court, which began on l December "I last and ended January la4 was the second hearing of the kind in the states history and in- volycd 32 specifications of alleged 'mafeasance. misfeasance and non feasancc in office" formulated by the grievance committee of the Boston
 Bar association and by Attorney-G Gen eral J. Weston Allen Less than n year ago Nathan A. Tufts was re- moved as district attorney in Middle
 sex county in q similar proceeding
 Evidence was presented against the district attorney, however. in only Fl of the charges. In 10 of those, he
 was accused of conspiracy to commit
 blackmail. Improper action in handl- ing cases in his office was alleged in 10 others and one specification attri- buted misconduct in two campaign addresses in which the state quoted Pelletier while speaking as a candi1- ate for mayor, as having promised immunity from prosecution 10 anyone who got into trouble through defend- ing him from reports that he intenf- ed to resign as district attorney. Pel- letter withdrew from the mayoralty campaign before the election.
 Dates Back To 1909.
 Attorney General Allen alleged that the acts of Peletier as district attor- lney since Nov. IS, 1909, when he took office, down to the date of filing the
 charges, as unfoded by witnesses, proved that the accused prosecutor had conducted his office in an nn- lawful and reprehensible manner. . None of the charges as originally il-
 ed specified that Pelletier had receiv-
 ed money in return for his alleged
 misconduct but evidence to this eff
 feet was presented in five cases. The attorney general offered this evidence in connection with claim that Pcl-
 letter had participated in the profits of a partnership of crime"
 rhn of e a n n in disposing of cases brought to the attention of the district attorneys of flee was the basis of five of the charges. The state maintained that Peletier should be removed because he had retained the assistants in of flee knowing their conduct to have been improper.
 Among the charges in support of which the state introduced testimony were. some to the effect that Pelletler had conspired with Daniel H. Coakley of Boston, a lawyer, and others to commit blackmail by threatening criminal prosecution. Vhe bank rec ords of Coakley and Pelletier. offered by the state were excluded as whole but were admitted in four cases ln- volving alleged money transactions.
 No evidence was offered for the de fensc, United State Senator James A. Reed. of Missouri. chief counsel for Pelletier declared that the whole pro- cceding was based on a conspiracy against his client by political and per sonal enemies and also that the pro secution had fallen fiat because the state had failed to connect the dis trict attorney with any wrong -dolng
 senator Reed said the defense elect ed to stand on the case as presented by the state, arguing that there was nothing in it to which the district attorney need make defense by tes- The attorney in his closing argument urged pelletler's failure to take the stand as point against him.
 Cross Examination
 By cross examination of state Wit | nesses and in the arguments of his Pelletier's defense was that he acted properly in handling all cases, that many of those which he declined to press were efforts te llse his office as a collection agency and that he never at any time, except in one case when he was paid legitim- ate fee as attorney in a law firm, re- ceived any money return.
 Two Boston attorneys and William J. Corcoran, the latter for mer district attorney of Middlesex county-were named in original in- formation as Co-consplrators With Pelletier, and three more names were added during the progress of the trlal The latter were Francis M Carroll former fire commissioner Daniel J. former assistant to Pel- | letter and also a former United States district attorney, and Jack Patron, q detective.
 The state charged a general con-