The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-07-20

Final defense measures oI 10 men accused of conspir:ng to defraud the city of Waterbury were dismissed today by Judge Ernest A. Inglis in superior court. The text of his de- cision is as follows:
 Memorandum on Demurrers
 Many of the grounds of demur- Ter assigned are the same grounds assigned in the pleas in abatement or the motions to quash in these proceedings. The reasons for oyer- ruling them which appear in the memoranda on those pleadings still obtain here.
 So far as practically all of the other grounds of demurrer are concerned, they all rest back on the fact that the information al- leges certain overt acts in each of which only a limited number of the accused are alleged to have participated. Counsel for the ac- cused seem to construe the infor- nation as though 1t were made up only of these allegations of overt acts, forgetting that the gist of the information is the charge that all of the accused entered into sim gle conspiracy to defraud the City of Waterbury by the use of un- lawful means. That is the charge set forth in the first few pages of the information. All of the rest of the information is taken up with the allegations setting forth the unlawful means adopted by all of the conspirators and put into oper- ation by various groups of the con- spirators and also overt acts done by various conspirators in pursu- ance of the conspiracy. When 1t is borne in mind that the informa- tion charges in the main that all of the accused were parties to a single conspiracy and that all of the allegations of other specific acts are simply incidental to that main charge, 1t becomes apparent that the grounds of demurrer are not well taken.
 Take for instance the claim made by some of the accused that the statute of limitations has barred the prosecution. That is based upon the contention that the overt acts alleged are, at most, misde- meanors and, therefore, outlawed after one year. It may be true that some of the overt acts alleged to have been done in pursuance of the conspiracy, a continuing con- spiracy, which operated down to the date of the information. A prosecution for conspiracy is barred only after five years from the date that it ceased to operate. It is therefore obvious that the conspiracy here charged is not barred by the statute of limita- tions.
 So 1t is with reference to the claim made by the two Coppetos and Purdie, that the only charge against them is that they struck a good bargain with the city and that is no crime. Whether the overt acts in which 1t is charged that the Coppetos or Purdie par ticipateS, in themselves, constitute a crime is immaterial. The fact is that they are charged with un- lawfully conspiring with the other, accused, and that is a crime.
 Several of the accused say in substance that it prejudices them to charge them with separate misdemeanors in the absence of facts from which 1t can reason- ably be concluded that those spe- cific acts were a part of the con- spiracy. The answer of course, is that they are not charged only with those misdemeanors. The charge is that they were members of a conspiracy and 1t is charged that the misdemeanors were com- mltted in pursuance or tnat con- spiracy.
 The ground of demurrer which is, in substance, that there is no allegation that the overt acts done by the various accused re- spectively were done with the knowledge that they were done in pursuance of any conspiracy, like wise falls when 1t is remembered that each of the accused Is charged with having been mem Der of the conspiracy. If he was a member of the conspiracy 1t follows that he had knowledge of the fact that the acts which he did were being done in pur- suance of that conspiracy. He also was chargeable with knowl- edge of the acts done by any of his fellow conspirators if they were done, as 1t is alleged they were, in pursuance of the con- spiracy. And all this is true whether the particular conspira-