The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-06-20
so Hayes and Leary could control the finances of Waterbury.

so Hayes and Leary could control the finances of, Waterbury.
 "The strangest claim in the entire grotesque information" was the way Brown described the states claim that Borgneas received $500 month from the city and the George H. Kingsley Company, his employers received $700.
 "In that case it's sauce for the goose, but not for the gander," he cried, as he recalled the "faltering testimony of the states accountant Warren M. Brown" that he charged $4 an hour for his assistants, out of which he realized two dollars.
 The fifth conspiracy, Murray said was charged as involving John s Johnston, of New York, in receiv- ing 197,74706 for services not rem dered the city in that amount. Mur- ray charged that there was no proof the service had not been rendered \ Unless the rules of law are changed, he said, it is not the bur- den of the defendant to prove his innocence, but the burden of the state to prove his guilt.
 No Evidence
 Conspiracy number six, he said, as alleged, was the claim that Frank J. Burns Santalucia received $780, 900 for services not rendered. "The record is barren of evidence that the services were not rendered for the sum paid," he said.
 In order then he listed the other 13 alleged conspiracies as follows: Philip and Ralph Coppeto and the Abrigador Digger; Dan Peters James P. Healey, John G. Purdie, Charles s. O'Connor, payments tc lawyers not defendants; Superin- tendent of Streets Thomas J. Elem ing; the cashing of checks at the Waterbury Trust Company; Actions of Carl D. Olsen; Charles E. Will liamson; Simon J. Alderman; the changing of the lock on the record store-room door; and the destruc- tion of the records.
 Murray argued there was no proof of general conspiracy = that there was no proof that Hayes had any knowledge of the destruction of the records.
 Referring to the evidence given by Charles E. Williamson, and fol- lowed by that of Harry Mackenzie his fellow lobbyist, who has pleaded guilty to the charge, Murray said, If anyone could get any comfort out of the evidence given by Mack enzie, in support of Williamson, he has greaaer imagination than ] have. He first pleaded guilty-then admitted being a perjurer and a drug addict"
 Conflict In Stories
 Murray pointed out that there was even a conflict of testimony be- tween Mackenzie and Williamson, as to whether one had cheated the other, and that Williamson's testi- mony differed from the statement he had made to County Detective Hickey with reference to the amount he received from the city.
 Simon J. Alderman of New Ha- ven, he said worked as an account ant. There is no evidence that AL derman was guilty of removing any records of the City of Waterbury, or that Leary had employed him for the purpose.
 Later, referring to that defendant and Ralph Coppeto, the lawyer claimed, T can't find any place a case against Alderman or Coppetto.
 With reference to the states at- tempt to prove that the mayor re- ceived money in excess of his sal ary, Murray said that there is nc evidence that the payments were H. legal or unauthorized.
 He said that if the total payments made to Hayes between 1880 anc 1885 were deducted from the $4,00C allowed for the eight years of his service for official entertainment there would be $3.500 remaining.
 Mayor Hayes Is able" he con. tinued, Ito satisfactorily explain every payment without question"
 Burden On state
 Mayor Hayes does not need ts prove his innocence, the burden il on the state to prove his guilt, ant the state has failed in that respect.
 Murray sald that the state hat thrown everything into the cast "like Q mulligan stew = from olt shoes to rabbits tails--and attempt. cd to boil 1t down and solidify c."
 He demanded to know what evI. dcnce there was that the assessor or Minor had con1pired with th, contractors or others involved if tho caaos