The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-05-23

" MAC OChllS O1 LIIc 1SO1 ClldIIGE, uc was blocked when defense counsel pointed out that the 1881 charter could not vitiate a contract made ill 1930.
 Judge 1nglis upheld the defense on that point.
 Today, however, the procedure dealt with comparison of the charter of 1925 with the legality of the 1930 contract.
 time, Alcorn said, and it required that certain things be done, before money was expended. "No such proceedings were had as result of the power vested in the mayor" he cried.
 Can't Be Done
 Atty. George Crawford entered new objections on the grounds that Alcorn was asking "a lay witness to adjudge illegal an act of the board of aldermen, because it did not conform with the mandates of the legislature" In a loud tone he said, "It's elementary enough but it can't be done."
 Tapping the table he demanded that the entire record of the July 2, 1880 meeting of the board of al- dermen be placed in evidence, "to see if the vote he seeks to i'm peach on legal grounds. The whole record of the meeting should be before the court" he cried.
 At that moment, Special Prosecu- tor Alcorn interrupted to call at tention of the court to page six of the information under which the accused men were arrested. It re- cited, he said, that during June, 1850, Mayor Hayes caused to be passed resolution, sponsored by him, authorizing him to make contract for two years, for the pur- pose of reducing utility rates.
 Subsequently on July g, 193O the information continued, follow ing a conference with Daniel J.. Leary, Thomas P. Kelly and Edward G. Levy, a contract was made. Un- der the terms of it, Levy, or the George B. Browning company, whom he represented, was to get one-half of the savings effected in utilities rates for the city.
 Oral Contract
 Alcorn also referred to an addi- tional oral contract, under which one-half of the fees received by Levy were to be paid over to Kelly.
 As a witness for the state early in the trial, Levy, one of the ac- cused who has pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentence, stated that he divided fees of more than $12O,OO0 with Kelly during 1930-1937. His split amounted to less than $2O,OOO the confessed-conspirator related.
 Asking the witness to read from the 1925 charter, Alcorn cried, q propose to show that no vote of a committee of the board of aldermen, and no approval of the board of fi- nance was given for the expenditure of the money, as was required by the provisions of this charter" He continued that he had no objection to MT. Crawford's motion that the entire record of the meet ing be made full exhibit and read in its entirety.
 He reiterated that he intended to show that there was no vote of a committee of the board of aldermen or the board of finance for the mak- ing of the contract or the spending of the money.
 For the safeguard of the treas ury of the city-it required the ap- proval of board of alderman com mittee or the board of finance,' he cried.
 Every dollar paid out-whether there was division or not-was an illegal expenditure of the mon- eys of the city of Waterbury" he cried during the argument.
 He summed up by stating that the charter of 1925, in effect at the time of the utilities contract, was not compiled with.
 Cannot Interpret
 Judge Inglis, ruling on the de- fense objections to the reading of the charter of 1925, admitted that Brown cannot be allowed to inter- pret the charter and interpret the votes and say they are illegal.
 But the states attorney only asks that certain sections of the charter be read to the jury-which is perfectly proper.
 T presume that he then pro- poses to go ahead and ask the wit ness if he found votes of the board of aldermen or board of finance al- lowing the expenditures of the money.
 "The states attorney is not ask ing for legal conclusions he's ask ing for facts"
 When Attorney Crawford inter- rupted with a suggestion that the states purpose be declared, Judge Inglis replied, "It isn't a question Of his purpose-it is a question of what he asks"
 Despite additional objections from Attorney Benjamin Slade, that the violation of city charter is not evidence of conspiracy" Judge In- glis overruled the objection.
 With the overruling of the de- fense objections, Warren Brown proceeded to read from page TAI, chapter 229 of the charter enacted in 1925, in effect in 1880. It provid- ed, he said that Each resolution or vote providing for the expendi- ture of money, pending before the board of aldermen. should be re- ferred to a standing committee and shall not be voted for passage until the next meeting-unless a 2-3 vote dictates otherwise" Precedent Explained
 Proceeding to another section of the 1925 charter. page 848, chapter 339, Brown said that it required that the board of aldermen shall not pass any resolution concerning the expenditure of money until it receives from the board of finance report as to money available for the purpose. If the board of finance reports no money available, then such vote shall be laid on the table and not passed until the finance commissioners report money availa- kla .s..&x. aAna