The Waterbury Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1917-1946, 1939-10-27
Judge Comley Frees
Thoms Of All Charges

tContanued
any similar instance where the state
had convicted without proof OF some
prior understanding" among those
claimed to be included In the act Of
bribery. Said the judge to Prosecu-
tor Alcorn: "You haven't proved It,"
Alc0rn admitted that the states
case rested On inference. but said:
"All that Is necessary for the state
to show Is the state Of facts from
which inference is properly drawn
that the stock was received by the
accused for support of legislation In
the General Assembly You can't get
the briber to testify to the bride. You
can't get the man who received 1t to
say 50, 80 we must do the same rs
we do in conspiracy. You have got
to offer evidence from which the In
ference can be drawn"
Charges Against Them
The charges against the ex-legisla-
tors date back to the filing Of the
report df the extraordinary grand
jury, probing into conduct Of NUM-
cipal affairs in Waterbury. Its re-
port contained o virtual charge that
an attempt had been made to create
Q monopoly for the Electric Steam
Sterilizer company within the state
Of Connecticut by introduction In the
General Assembly OF 1885 OF q bill
requiring sterilization equipment IN
all public toilets.
Five legislators were claimed TO
have received shares Of stock In the
company In the following amounts:
Joseph II. Lawlor. 1900 shares: John
d. Thoms, 400 shares: Nathan Spiro,
500 shares: Matthew A. DAILY, 200
shares: and Daniel Hickey. 200
shares.
Lawlor and spiro were both MEM
bers Of senate committee on public
health and safety in 1885. the lat
ter the chairman. This committee
considered the sanitation bill. Hickey
was majority leader Of the House,
Thoms, minority leader. Daily was
also a member of the state senate.
Presented I'm Court
In June, 1898, the i've legislators
were presented In Hartford superior
court on charges Of accepting tribe
in return for legislative fayors. Spiro
immediately pleaded guilty to the
charge and was fined $500 by Judge
Robert L. Munger. A demurrer, filed
at the same time by counsel for
Thoms, stated that the states charge
Of bribery was not borne out in the
complaint filed. It was denied by
Judge Munger and q similar demur-
rer filed at the outset of the trial
this week was also denied, this time
by Judge Comley.
Memorandum OF Decision
Judge Comley's memorandum OF
decision read this morning was as
follows: IT have reached the con-
clusion that In order to convict un-
der the submitted complaint It was
necessary for the state to offer
some testimony that transfer Of
stock by Leary to the defendant on
September 6 was pursuant to q cor
rupt understanding by which the
defendant was influenced to vote for
or give his support to the measure
described as Section $500 Of the
Supplement to the Connecticut
General Statutes which was ap-,
proved in June Is, 1885.
Had there existed a corrupt ,ln-,
derstanding the fact that the stock
was not transferred until several
months later would not be Of any
consequence. But there has been
introduced no evidence OF such al
prior arrangement, agreement or ex-I
pectaticn.
What State Claims
s.The state claims that ! may M
fer the existence Of such o corrupt
understanding from the circum-
stances attending the introduction
in the legislature Of this measure,
and its subsequent adoption and
from the acceptance Of the stock by
the defendant on Sept. 9.
~Of course, / agree that II It were
possible to draw from the circum-
stances any logical conclusion that
such q corrupt arrangement existed
It would be my duty to give the
state the benefit Of that inference
but I cannot agree that the cir
In evidence permit me
to draw such an inference. After
very careful examination Of all
available authorities / am convinced
that the case must be determined
upon the long established principle
that the acceptance Of money o.
other valuable rning by an official
subsequent to his official action Is
not bribery unless he received IL
pursuant to . prior corrupt under-