The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-08-01
Conspiracy Proved by Inference Claims Alcorn

The defense, I feel confident, will argue that the state has proven no agreement to cheat and defraud the city of Waterbury. It will probably be said to you that the state has not proved something in the nature of a contact. Ladies ano gentlemen, it isn't proved that each of these nine- teen sat down around table and signed an agreement to cheat and defraud the city of Waterbury. Nothing like that is necessary. All the state has to prove, we claimed, is that certain acts or certain facts from which you can infer that there was an agreement or a combination to cheat and defraud the city of Waterbury. It is rarely that you can prove conspiracy made in any way but to show facts and circumstances from which you can infer that there was a combination to cheat and de- fraud the city of Waterbury.
 So I hope you won't be deluded or led astray from the fact that the state hasn't proved any conspiracy. Not necessary, we claim, and hope his honor will charge you to that effect.
 Ladies and gentlemen, I want to show you thatt he conspiracy de- veloped from its very inception from 1880 right up to the date or time of the information, May 19, 1888. You will recall thatt he evil dence is that Mayor Hayes and Controller Leary took office in Jan- uary 1880. You will recall that at that time, according to the testi- mony, there had been a re-organiza- tion-so to speak-in the bookkeep- ing system here in the city. Grif- fenhagen Associates I believe was the name-an accounting firm had been here in Waterbury and had set up a bookkeeping system for the controllers office. And that bookkeeping system had a vital part of it-a sheet called the warrants payable sheet on which all debts or claims againstthe city had to be en- tered and presened to the Board of Finance for approval and 50 on.
 You recall the testimony of MT. Purcell and MT. Fitzmaurice, the city clerk, that under that system as set up in 1880, that the very first use of that system by the city was in January 1880. I am sure you haven't forgotten MT. Purcell stat ing to us that in January 1880 he discovered that duQlicate payment of $3500 had been made to some contractor here in Waterbury, and he called that to the attention of MT. Leary, the controller. And he expected naturally enough that something would be done about 1t. But nothing was done about it. Feb- ruary came and he went to see MT. Leary again and nothing was done about it. March came and he went to see MT. Leary about and noth- ing was done about 1t, so he went to Mayor Hayes. Mayor Hayes call- ed MT. Leary and they had a talk about It. MT. Leary said, "I'm run ming the controllers office, not Purcell" or words to that effect. And the mayor said to MT. Purcell, according to evidence, that he shouldn't question MT. Leary. Don't question MT. Leary." Well, the payment even then wasn't forthcoming. MT. Leary sent for MT. Purcell and said, and believe I'm quoting the testimony, There's certain people who have put us here and they have to be taken care of." And he said to MT. Purcell that Purcell wasn't politician and didn't understand. Now, ladies and gentlemen, that was in the first few months they were in office here in Waterbury.
 Designed
 Now, I ask you If that doesn't | show right in the very beginning a designed intent to detraud the citi- ] zens of the city of Waterbury. Let's | disregard for the time being and for | the purpose of argument, participa- tion by any one else in 1t. But what | does that show of MT. Leary at that | time? It shows that he had no in- | tention at that time to put that | money back where 1t belonged, in the city treasury. He intended at | that time to take care of somebody who had put him III office. A cor- rupt design if there ever was one and he had been in office for three months.
 Well, little later, the money did find its way back into the city treasury. Probably some time in March or early April, and so much for that instance. MT. Purcell, meanwhile, remember-ladies and gentlemen-was in the controllers | office, just taken in and had no pre- vious contact with Hayes or Leary or any of the rest of the admins tration. Well, 1t wasn't more than month or two that something | came up that MT. Purcell found it necessary to take up with the con- troller. He testified that in May or June he found that tl.erc were cer- tain over-expenditures being made, and he went down to MT. Leary and | told him about 1t saying that some | of these appropriations were being | over-expended already. What was | required? Well, what are we going | to do about 1t? What the hell can we | do about 1t? We've got to have the | stuff." Purcell said that after the | conference in which MT. Leary said | that, he went back two or three more times, tried to point out to MT. Leary that there were over-ex- penditures in violation of the char ter, and there were coming no re- suits.
 
 BURIED IN SAME