The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-08-01

iqueStlon with what have to say tC you. So what I say will be in the plainest language can give you and it will be as brief as I can give 1t, but 1t may be extended as to the nature of the case.
 remember one famous case sit- ting in courtroom and hearing a learned judge tell the jury that when they entered the jury room they should keep their eye on the ball" and I think that little, only bit of evidence is pretty good ad- vice for any jury a tall.
 Particularly is that so in a case of this kind where you have a num- Der of defendants, Lumber of spe- cific incidents, where various de- fendants have participated, and where you have number of coun- sel who have been drawing prelim- mary evidence from the very first day of the trial. So I will commend to you, at this time, that only bit of homely advice to keep your eye on the ball'' and when the evidence is given you for consideration, will suggest that you will examine all these things pretty carefully to see whether or not it is or has a direct bearing on the question here.
 Anticipates Claims
 That one question here, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is that each one of these defendants par ttcipated in some degree or to some extent in conspiracy or a combi- nation to cheat and defraud the citizens and taxpayers of the city of Waterbury. Now, claims will be made here that q think they will be made; if not, I should be sur- prised and would expect you to be surprised) the state has not proved any conspiracy at all. assume that the defense will attempt to lead you in the belief that the state has proved not one conspiracy but many separate conspiracies and tell you to find the defendants not guilty. I think you will find a great deal of that by the defense that the state has not proved one con- spiracy but many separate conspir- acieS.
 Keep in mind, ladies and gentle men, when they do that, and I am quite sure that they will, that they are admitting commission of 8 crime or crimes here in Waterbury. think you will find 1t said here that the City of Waterbury bene- fitted by the administration of Mayor Hayes and the auditing serv- ices rendered by Kingsley & Co. The income of the city was sub- stantially increased. But what of 1t? It has nothing whatever to do with the charge here in the case ] just another red herring. The charge here is that the defendants combined to cheat and defraud the city of Waterbury, and I don't think this jury is going to take very much stock of the claim that the income was increased. You will find 1t claimed here that the states claim rests in part on the evidence that checks were made without the approval of the Board of Finance, and if correctly understand the evidence which I heard here, the defense will claim that many checks were made without the ap- proval of the Board of Finance. It Without Approval
 Again I will ask you to examine the testimony and find that there are many payments required by the Board of Finance; for example, payments of interest. Payments on transfers of funds from one department to another where there were no approvals by the Board of Finance, and as said, the checks marked as exhibits by the defense; apparently to lead you to believe that they were, and that 1t was a regular thing for checks to be made with out approval. I want to recall to your mind that there were specific items which did not have to be ap- proved - payroll items, interest items-and I am going to remind you that it is necessary in trial of this length, this magnitude, that 1t is very necessary that you keep your eye on the ball.
 Side Track
 They will invite you to consider, l believe, the claim which they made on the cross examination of MT. Purcell. As understand, the infer ence they wanted to have drawn from what they were bringing out that because MT. Purcell didn't re- veal or disclose the irregularities of which he had some knowledge that there were, that he was part of the conspiracy, if there was one. We'll, all those claims, ladies and gentlemen, are invitations for you to get off on 8 side track, an invitation for you to consider matters which are not in this information, and concerning which the state has no interest what soever. We are interested on that one question: that each one of these defendants participated in some ex- tent in a combination to cheat and defraud the city of Waterbury. I hope that his honor will charge you, and I believe he will charge you, that 1t is not your function to de- eide how great was the participa- tion of any one or the degree of cul- pability of any one of the defend- ants. That is for his honor and he will probably tell you that.
 Your one task is to decide if each one participated no matter how small his part may have been. If he par ticipated and knowingly, you will have fulfilled your function-no matter how great or small was his participation. Now the state claims that each one of the defendants knew about the case, that each one participated knowingly, that each one participated with an intent to cheat and defraud the city. The state claims and I hope his honor will charge you that it is not nec- essary that each of the defendants know any of the other defendants. I recall MT. Levy being asked if he knew certain ones of the defend- ants. He said no. Why, of course not. The state hasn't attempted to prove that he did and I'm going to tell yolI