The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-02-02

Sluorapke puptlclVy Nnou6 tlo ma6Vcr in Waterbury," asked Aloorn.
 Objections of several counsel were overruled.
 Tt had not come to my atten- tion," replied the witness, Levy said that about January 20, 1888 he had heard from him, and Alcorn asked, What, if anything, did he sayp"
 Attorney Murray objected, here, stating that such conversation would not be binding on the other accused
 Heard from Olsen Again
 Alcorn withdrew the question and reframed it, saying, During Janu- ary, 1888, did you hear from Ol- sen9" The answer was in the afiirm- ative. Levy said that Olsen tele- phoned him and when Alcorn pressed for the subject matter oi the conversation, Attorney Cassidy for Olsen, objected.
 Alcorn then asked Levy if he rec ogniEed the voice, and Levy replied T thought I did" He said 1t was about noon, and that he was at his office in New Haven when the call came, He did not know where Ol- sen called him from.
 Vigorous objections arose from the defense table, and after hearing some arguments, Judge fnglis deemed 1t advisable to excuse the jury.
 In the absence of the jury, then, Levy was called on to testify to the subject matter of the telephone call from Olsen.
 What did he say" asked Alcorn,
 What Olsen Said
 Levy proceeded to give the gist oi the conversation: He said, this is Carl Olsen of Waterbury calling How are you. I'm talking for Tom Kelly. There has been some publicity concerning checks one of which was received by you, You may get Q tele- phone call from 0 local paper. II you do, remember your transactions as attorney and client are inviolate Tom Is anxious to see you about the matter and straighten 1t out"
 Levy said that he reaclled on ap- pointment was made for him to meet Kelly ct the Prses Club, the following Thursday of that week.
 Question of olsen's Voice
 Levy said that he identified olsen's voice after the latter said "This is Carl olsen,' when questioned by de- fense counsel as to his means of Identification.
 Questioned by the judge, Levy said that he had heard Olsen talk several times, but never remembered carry- Ing on any conversation with him prior to the telephone call,
 Attorney Cassidy said that Levy really recognized Olsen's voice merely because he said he was Olsen. After all," he said, "it was his name and not his voice that you recognized.
 He then went into discussion of the manner in which Levy's secre- tary handles telephone calls ct his office in New Haven. Levy said his secretary's name is Mignon Clark, and that she makes no record of in- coming calls unless they are "eol- lect."
 Attorney Murray Objects
 Attorney Murray objected to the use Of the Levy-Olsen conversation on the ground that an effort was being made to get into the records statements of past events-after the consummation and completion of the conspiracy.
 "The answer sought will not bind the other accused" he commented
 Attorney Warehouse joined with Murray. He added that this conver- sation, which took place after Jan. uary 3, 1888. when Leary left office, could have no connection with any conspiracy to defraud the city of Waterbury. "Nothing after that date can be admitted against Leary," he said.
 Supreme Court Ruling Cited
 Attorney Crawford cited e U. S. supreme court case in connection with his arguments,
 The judge remarked at this time of the procedeings, in the absence Of the jury, If an act is committed to cover up e conspiracy-it ls-in the essence-in pursuance of the conspiracy"
 Attorney Cassidy argued that the Levy-Kelly agreement was in no way connected with the original contract concerning Browning and Company, which was planned in the cellar of the city hall by Leary, Kelly and Levy, This is Q new conspiracy be- tween Kelly and Levy" he said.
 Attorney McDonough also voiced his objection in e modulated tone.
 Alc0rn Takes Floor
 Alcorn took the stump to comment that the defense attorneys forget that this is general conspiracy Hayes is still mayor and Kelly is still his secretary.
 The date of the termination of the conspiracy, he said, was May 10, 1888, the date of issuance of the information, not January 3 as charged by defense counsel. He said that if the testimony concerning the call would be omitted, 1t would be necessary to omit the tes- timony concerning the burning of the city yard records by Fleming; or the burning of the tellers' daily sheets which would show the names and amounts on checks cashed. He charged that thousands were passed to Levy by Kelly at the Press club.
 "The sums were given sent transferred for the purpose of the conspiracy" he said.
 Did Not End in January
 "The conspiracy did not end in January" he said. Tt continued on and up to the date of the infor- May 19, 1938."
 Attorney McDonough showed in the warrant where the charge was Ito January 1, 1938," but Alcorn by showing in the open ing paragraphs, to the date of this 
 Judge Inglis said that he under