The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-07-08
|AlcornA Again Upheld ByRulings
 Rendered ByJudge Ernest Inglis

Three decisions by Judge Ernest A. Inglis in superior court yesterday upheld the state, Special Prosecutor Hugh M. Alcorn and the grand jury in their probe of the local administration.
 The three complete decisions are presented as follows:
 Memorandum on Motions to Quash.
 Practically all of the grounds assigned to these motions are the same grounds assigned for abate- ment in the Pleas in Abatement and have been passed upon in the Memorandum on Demurrer to the Pleas of Abatement. There are however, several a d ditional grounds which should be noted.
 The first of these is that the in formation sets forth prejudicial matters. The answer to that is, the information does no more than charge conspiracy speci- flying various overt acts commit ted in pursuance of the con- spiracy. It is a proper form for the information to take and it does not appear that there are any facts alleged therein which are not reasonably essential to the proper setting forth of the charges.
 Another ground stated in some of the motions to quash is the broad general ground that the in- formation does not set forth a crime. It is perfectly clear that the information does allege the crime of conspiracy.
 Still another ground stated in some of the motions is that the evidence in possession of the States Attorney is insufficient to warrant a prosecution. This mat ter was not argued probably be- cause 1t is 50 obvious that the States Attorney does have evi- dence in his possession which offers probable ground for a proS- ecution.
 Finally. in the motions to quash of Philip Coppeto and Ralph Coppeto, 1t is alleged that the offense charged occurred out side of the State and that the charge against Philip Coppeto is simply one of aiding and abet- ting. The answer to this is that the charge against each of these accused Is charge of conspiracy and that occurrences outside of the State of Connecticut and the aiding and abetting alleged are simply overt acts alleged as being in pursuance of the conspiracy.
 All of the motions to quash are over-ruled.
 Inglis, J.
 Memorandum on Motions for Bills of Particulars.
 The law applicable to these motions is set forth in Section 302, Practice Book 1924 and ir State V. Pallotti, 119 Conn, 70, 73. It is that when an informa- tion fails to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation" and therefore violates his constitutional rights, a bill of particulars must be ordered and if it fails to give him sufficient in- formation to enable him to pre- pare a defense such bill of partic- ulars should be ordered. The court may in its discretion order a bill of particulars when it deems 1t to be the interest of justice to do so.
 The requests for more particu- lar statements in this case are too numerous to discuss in detail. Suffice 1t to say that a careful study of the lengthy information makes it clear that 1t fully in- forms the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation made against them and a careful test ing of 1t as against the various requests for more particular statements indicates that it is adequate to permit the accused to prepare their defense.
 Except in the case of Henry Minor the interests of justice would not be promoted by order- ing the State to comply with the requests for more specific state ment and in the discretion of the Court such order should not be entered.
 AS regards Henry Minor the situation is somewhat different. All of the others are charged with certain overt acts. That charge of overt acts indicates how each of them was connected with the conspiracy. It is not alleged that Henry Minor participated in any specific overt act done in pur- suance of the conspiracy. The only charge against him is the general one that he conspired with the rest to defraud the City of Wa terbury by unlawful means. It would seem that justice would be promoted If he were informed as to what part the State claims he had in the alleged conspiracy.
 Accordingly the motions for bills of particulars of each and all of the accused except Henry Minor are denied, and the motion for bill of particulars of Henry Minor is denied except that 1t is ordered that the State by bill of particulars set forth what part the said Henry Minor had in the alleged conspiracy.
 Inglis. J.
 It is ordered that if any de- murrers to the information are to be filed, they be filed on or be- fore Tuesday July 12, l93e, and argued before the Court at nine o'clock in the forenoon, E. s. T. on Friday July IS. 1898.