The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-06-20

JAMES D. c. MURRAY
 Mayors Counsel
 expenditure of the city'S money but it provided that only George M. Browning, Inc. would be compensat- ed with the money they saved.
 Contract Legal
 Our contention is while this con- tract was properly made, and legal ly that it didn't have to be made because money was to be expended Now, if your honor remembers the testimony way back months ago, Levy testified that he had met MT Kelly and MT. Leary and held a conference in the basement of the City Hall in which it was there agreed that Levy would return to Leary and Kelly 50% of the money he would received from the City of Waterbury. There isn't scintilla of evidence in this case, if your honor please, which connects MT. Hayes either directly or indirectly or eith- CT by innuendo or suspicion to have you know that such an agreement was made.
 There was no evidence that he received any money and there is no evidence whatever, even circum- stantially, that he knew that such money was to be paid or was paid, providing that yo ucan believe MT. Levy. Now, it seems to me, in the Levy testimony that there is in volved a pretty vivid question of law. Levy, of course, pleaded guilty and, therefore, is a confessed ac- complice. In addition to that, Levy, is a confessed perjuror, and providing that you can believe MT ing evidence for Levy's confessed perjured testimony, and in light of the fact that he is an accomplice in the question of finding support that it would be pretty difficult to find a legal reason for accepting Levy's testimony or submitting it to the jury for their consideration
 Now, as part of that separate and distinct alleged conspiracy, Gas usual which runs all through this infor- mation) you find there is some thing which almost amounts to a case in which Mayor Hayes name is unjustifiably placed in the in formation, and that is, that Mayor Hayes conspired with Leary, Kelly, BorgnaeS, Aldermen, and Dunn to burn or otherwise remove the rec ords in that transaction so as to conceal that so-called part of the conspiracy and to cover MT. Hayes part in it.
 No Connection
 Now, if your honor please, you remember of this long trial record that there has never been the slightest testimony which could connect Mayor Hayes with the re- moval of the records from the city hall, and there is no evidence, either directly or indirectly, I sub- init, your honor please, that would sustain such proposition. Of course, know what the states att torney, urges or will urge what he had intimated during this trial. I suppose what he means is that be- cause certain records disappeared from the city hall that, therefore, Mayor Hayes must have had some thing to do with this disappear ance which I urge, your honor, is totally unjustifiably.
 And then as in every other sep- arate and independent pleaded con- spiracy in this case, the states attorney has attempted to prove that because payments didn't appear on the warrants payable sheets until after the meeting of the Board of Finance and therefore were not passed and approved by the Board of Finance and that because Mayor Hayes was an ex-officio member oi the Board of Finance, therefore, he is responsible for those items and entries on those sheets. But, il seems to me that the states at torney in that respect has blown hot and cold at the same time. His contention is that the payments were put on the warrants payable sheets after the meeting of the Board of Finance. If they were put on the warrants payable sheets af- ter the meeting of the Board of Fi- nance and were not known to the members of the Board of Finance al the time they signed the sheets how, then, could Mayor Hayes know that those items were added after the meeting of the Board of Fi- nance?
 Legally Unjustifiable
 Now, if your honor please, to say that Mayor Hayes under t,t charter was to aggregate every item of expenditures that was paid out of the controllers office of the city of Waterbury, it seems to me it is legally unjustifiable and would be an outrageous burden on the first executive of any municipality. Youi honor knows from the evidence iil this case the multiplicity of trans actions in the city the size of Wa. terbury, the number of employees ir the city of Waterbury, and the absolute impossibillty of the mayor of this city to follow up ever, item of expenditure made through the controllers office. He isn't re. ouired to do that and 1t would bs Impossible for him to do it; SO thai if sucfi payments were made to Lev, after 1882 and then. If they didn' appear on the warrants payable sheets at the time Mayor Hayel paid them, your honor please. thal Isn't evidence that Mayor Hayel knew of the payments or approved the payments.
 And when I say that, your honol please, am not urging that the, were not perfectly proper pnymentl