The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-08-08

corrupt agreement - and that the state would have to prove Healey's knowledge of it to convict him.
 He scoffed at the states conten- ton that Healey must have known about the conspiracy in 1884 be- cause in that year the payments to the Conner Go. increased to $l7,000 and in 1885 amounted to $11,000.
 "This reasoning is cracked" Cas- sidy said, "Because in 1936 only $56O was paid and in 1887 only $80O."
 Tt is unreasonable-it is impossi- ble to follow the states reasoning. Such an inconsistent claim can't hold water and doesn't justify you beyond reasonable doubt to hold James P. Healey guilty as charged" Cassidy added.
 Healey, he said, knew nothing about charter requirements, and had no knowledge of pin point ma chimes or warrants payable sheets. All checks payable to the Conner Go. were honored by the Citizens & Manufacturers National Bank, he said.
 Good Vacuum Cleaner
 The defense attorney pointed out to the jury that County Detective Hickey had made no reference to Healey, when on the stand, giving as testimony quotations of state- ments made to him by other mer11- l,or. af fha arrread Ur0iin
 If Healey had had any state ment, Hickey would have told you" Cassidy said, flor Hickey, when he gets going, IS as good a vacuum cleaner as there it."
 Poor Wreck"
 Donate Pietraroria of Bristol, whom the state charges received $75 .000 for rental of trucks, when he owned no trucks, was pictured by Cassidy as "just poor old wreck of man." upon whom the sun was rapidly sinking.
 He said 1t was like bolt from the sky when Peter found himself &C., cused of a criminal act-one Of 27 men who allegedly banded to steal a million dollars. "He was accused of being connected with men he never even heard of-men he never knew. Cassidy said
 In slow drawl tone, Cassidy continued, referring to Peters, He hasn't the mental ability to make up his mind what he wants to do. And he a member of the conspiracy?"
 The state, he said. rests its case on the claim that Peters paid no taxes in the City of Waterbury or Bristol on trucks and therefore could own no trucks.
 "The state asks you to believe that 1t was impossible for him to obtain trucks from other truckers and rent them to the City of Waterbury, Cassidy continued. Cassidy contend ed that it was ordinary business for trucker to rent trucks from one man and sub-let them to another
 "rf Dan Peters did not furnish trucks" Cassidy argued, Hickey would have produced at least one witness who would have told you that Peters did not have contract You would not be left to guess or surmise."
 Had Contract
 "Your better reason tells you that he did have contract" Cassidy told the jury. He made references then to the "chats" Hickey had with Pet CTS, Olsen and other defendants.
 But Hickey didn't tell us all that Peters said" Cassidy charged. He didn't say all about Andrew Larson that he met Larson in Water
 Alcorn cut in with an objection saying, That's not in the evidence
 Judge Inglis commented that Cassidy was going outside the evil dence actually in, but Cassidy con- tended that Hickey had mentioned Larson. but hadn't said all that 1 Peters told him about Larson. Judge Inglis sustained Alcorn's objection and Cassidy continued tc say, Peters said he rented trucks :" Again he was cut of by ob- jections from Alcorn, who said that there was no such evidence. Cassidy claimed there was.
 'TIl have to leave 1t to the mem. ory of the jury" said Judge Inglis
 Referring to the testimony oi Hickey that Peters told him he only received $35 weekly for signing checks of much higher denomina. tions, Cassidy said, Tt is clear anc reasonable to conclude that Petert had a contract. from the payments made each week"
 He continued that 1t was reason. able to conclude that Peters received the S35 and that the balance went l Ia I.arsnla lAndraW Larson. de.