The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-11-14

{. Appeal from decision on mo. ton tO set aside verdict.
 5. Assignments of error on de- cision on motion to set aside.
 c. Motion to make entire evi- dence Q part of appeal record.
 Entire Evidence Filed
 Besides the formal documents constituting appeal file, the defend- ants filed with the clerk the entire evidence in l9 volumes.
 In addition to this the complete charge of the court consisting of 254 pages was filed in a separate bound volume.
 The exceptions to rulings during the trial, amounting to approximate ly 800 pages and bound in two sep- arate volumes, were filed in quad- duplicate sets making bound VOL umes altogether.
 Lawyers Present
 The lawyers present and filing ap- peal papers were: Josiah H. Peck and Fred Waterhouse for Leary: Thomas McDonough for Kelly; Al- bert Hummel for Fleming; William J. Wholean for Dunn; John H. Cas- sidy for O'Connor, Healcy and San- talucia; Sidney Cassel for Coppeto; Samuel A. Persky for Minor and Johnston; George W. Crawford for Alderman; and Benjamin Slade for Kingsley and Meany.
 Attorney James D. c. Murray was la attendance as a witness at the Kuhn trial in New York. and was unable to be present. His appeal documents for T. Frank Hayes were filed for him by Attorney George W. Crawford.
 The appeals of al defendants, while they differed in some respects were similar to considerable ex- tent. A typical setting forth Of the reasons for appeal was drawn by Atty. John Fl. Cassidy in the case Of Frank J. Santalucia. It reads as follows;
 Official Appeal Document
 Request for Finding and Proposed
 Draft Finding of Appellant,
 Frank J. Santalucia
 The appellant, Frank J. Santa. lucia. in the above entitled case, respectfully requests q finding of facts for an appeal to the Su. preme Court Of Errors and sub. mits the Draft Finding hereto an- ncxed. The questions of law which he desires t0 have reviewed are:-
 Did the Court err:
 l. In denying the defendants motion that the Hon. Ernest A. lngiiS was disqualified to sit as the presiding judge, as set forth in part seven of the accompanying Draft Finding?
 2. In sustaining the states demurrer tO the defendants plea in abatement?
 ,. In everything the defendants Plea in Abatement? {. Tn denying the defendant's motion to quaSh the information and yacate the bench warrant?
 5. In denying the defendants claim of law made in said motion that Sections 6i4G and 8456 of the statutes of thIs state under which this proceeding was had violates the defendants constitutional rights under the 14th amendment of the constitution Of the United States and Article 1, Section 0 of the constitution of the state?
 G. In overriding the defendants demurrer to the information? ]. In 0Verruling the defendants motion for More Specific State- ! ment?
 6. Tn denying the defendants Motion to Expunge? Q. Tn denying the defendants motion for the return of his rec OrdS, which were in the possess sion Of the state? 10. In denying the defendants Motion tO View the Grand Jury Minutes?
 II. In denying the defendants motion to strike certain evidence from the record filed at the con. clusi0n Of the states case? 12. In making the rulings as set forth in the fifth part of the accompanying draft of finding? 13. In refusing to charge the jury as requested by the defend. ant and set forth in the third part VI tuC accompanying uhaAs Uh hHu~ ing?
 i4. In charging the jury as set forth in the fourth part of the accompanying draft of finding? IS. Tn refusing to grant the de- fendant's Motion in Arrest of Judgment?
 16. Tn granting the motion Of the State to re-transfer the case tO Waterbury, as set forth in part sixth of the accompanying draft of Finding and confirming the appointment of Hugh M. Alcorn, Sr.. Hugh Meade Alc0rn. IT,. and Harold Mitchell. special states at- t0rney and assistants for New 1a. ven county tO prosecute this cause?
 The Appellant, Frank J. Santa lucia by his attorney
 JOHN III. CASSIDY.
 Appeals Arrived
 Defense attorneys gathered in the office of Clerk George H. Freeman of the superior court shortly after 10 a. m. and one by one the differ ent appeals came in. When all were in Atty. George W. Crawford of New Haven. counsel for Simon Alderman, announced that all coun- sel were prepared to pay the appeal fee.
 Clerk Freeman announced that he Twas willing to consider all defend- IantS as being involved in one case