The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-07-01
Quo Warranto
 Ruling Appealed
tContinued from Page D

rom Page D , Alcorn and the states case against 27 men including Lieutenant Cover nor Frank Hayes, who were charged with malfeasance in office by the grand jury.
 Motions Next Tuesday
 Among the motions to be argued or set down for argument at the Tuesday hearing are: motions to quash the information against the accused motions to expunge cer- tain portions of the information against various of the accused; mo- tons for inspection of the grand jury minutes; motions to strike out certain references against several of the accused; motions for bills Of particulars and others.
 More than 100 motions were filed | as preliminaries to the defense by counsel for the accused on June 2l. Arguments on those remaining will require considerable time before the actual trial of the cases can be con- ducted. An appeal to the supreme court of errors or even to the U. s. Supreme Court from the quo war ranto decision would not stay the local proceedings, however.
 Judge Inglis upheld the method employed in the selection of the grand jury upheld the right or the special prosecutors and steno- raphers to enter the grand jury room-uphcld the oath of secrecy as imposed on witnesscs-and in general granted court sanction to everything which Special Prescott tor Alcorn and the grand jury have completed thus far in their investi- gation.
 Must Be Authority
 In answer to Alderman Kellys charge in the quo warranto that Acorn should not have been named special prosecutor because there was no cause pending Judge Inglis says, "If such were the correct interpre- tation of the statute, the statute It. self would be practically nugatory. If states attorney is disqualified to act in the prosecution he is cer- tainly disqualified to decide whether prosecution should be Instituted. He is disqualified to sign or file any information. If no one may be ap- pointed a special states attorney until after any information Is filed there Is no one qualified to instl- ute the proceedings and the crim- inal goes unpunished."
 Judge Inglis holds that & cause of action comes into being at the time that a crime has been com mittcd.
 The states attorney at Water bury has the same powers AS the states attorney at New Haven. is Judge Inglis' ruling in answer to the charge that Samuel k. Hoyt, states attorney at New Haven should have been named prosecutor here. Judge Inglis contends that the legislature meant Waterbury and New Haven districts to be as distinct AS If they were separate counties. The judge points to the confusion which might result if the situation were otherwise, and the conflict which might develop between the officers of the districts.
 Courts Jurisdiction
 It is firmly maintained by the court that when a superior court fudge is satisfied that states at torney is disqualified to act the court has jurisdiction to name a special states attorney.
 Judge Inglis also denied the con- tention of the defense that States Attorney Lawrence L. Lewis was H. legally disqualified This ruling Is final and conclusive" he says, even though the court erred In finding the states attorney disqual- fled in the sense prescribed by law. He continues that 1t Is a judicial determination which cannot be at tackled by quo warranto proceeding.
 The lengthier of the two decisions k that on the pleas in abatement, in which Judge Inglis separates the lssues into what he determines the seven most salient questions as ad- vanced by thc delehse.
 Sworn In March
 In answer to the charge that Special Prosecutor Alcorn had not taken the oath of special prosecutor, Judge Inglis points to the court rec ords which show he was sworn in March l.
 Splitting hairs" is the manner in which Judge Inglis describes the claim of the defense that MT. Alcorh was only named to conduct a pre- ! liminary Investigation of local at- fairs. An oath to conduct an in- yestigation K an oath to carry the matter through to the point where the true facts are established as true," says the judge, He adds that no bond is required of special prosecutor thereby eliminating another defense Issue.
 l Upholding the method Of selec- tion of the jury. Judge lnglis says that the statutes specify that the superior court may when necessary summon 6 grand jury. Judge Inglis says that ". the actual fact )s that the members of the grand jury were selected by the court upon in- formation obtained from the special states attorney, the sheriff, and from at least one other source. v He adds that the statutes do not