The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-03-21

appears that the Conn. Supply Co. began business in October 1884 so that, of course, there were no tax able properties of that so-called company returned prior to 1884. Now. I'm offering this list of 1884 for the purpose of showing the pos sessed property of the Conn. Supply Go. in 1884, in which tn e state claims Santalucia had a half inter- est. It Is admissible for one other reason. It seems to me that if Santalucia did have the half inter- est which he claimed, at the time he was furnishing from 1884, as he claims, truck hire to the city of Waterbury and it was being paid for. That is to say, Santalucia was drawing a tremendous sum of money from the city of Waterbury for truck hire; the Conn. Supply Co. was drawing tremendous sums of money for truck hire, so that the City of Waterbury under this scheme - such fraudulent schemes that existed-the City of Waterbury was paying Santalucia and it was paying Santalucia under the guise of the Conn. Supply Go. Now, we want to show just what the Conn. Supply Co. returned by way of equipment on the books. We have shown 1t so far aS your honor's ruling will permit Us to show just what Santalucia's personal property consisted of during that period. Now, claim this evidence on the ground which I suggested.
 Atty McDonough asked if it were offered only against Frank Santa
 lucia or against all defendants, to
 which Alcorn made the following
 reply:
 Alcorn: Now. I'm offering 1t against Santalucia now and upon
 it's proper bearing to the money which went to the Conn. Supply O.,
 which we say, of course, was split
 among others of the accused.
 Atty. Cassidy: don't think that
 is specific statement. By that he
 says it is offered against Santa
 lucia and then qualities it by say ing now, and in the next sentence indicates that he offers it up against the other evidence. It seems to me that he should make it spe- cific. would like to inquire whether it was offered solely against San- talucia.
 Alcorn: I want to offer 1t against Santalucia and offer it against the Conn. Supply Co.,, in which Santa lucia was interested and whatever effect it may have with respect to the dealings and operations of Leary and Olson and others charged in this conspiracy.
 Attorney McDonough: That is just the difficulty. The states at torney should be specific as to whether 1t was offered against the Conn. Supply Company or Santa lucia or all of these defendants.
 Judge: He says that he offered 1t against all of the defendants.
 Alcorn: Yes.
 McDonough: I object to it so far as Thomas Kelly is concerned, definitely and vigorously.
 Cassidy: Of course, the states attorney wasn't compelled to set our specific acts of these individual defendants - but he did.
 Now, he is bound by that state- ment and, of course, we made mo- tions for specific statements. So that being bound by the informa- tion, there is nothing told in the that sets out that Fran cis Fruin of the Conn. Supply Com pany was any party to the con- spiracy. There were no specific acts alleged against Francis Fruin as being in the conspiracy. Now the evidence is there that any act pr any statement or any admission either negative or positive, made by Francis Fruin during his life time Is not now admissible against or any of his other de- fendantS. All right. Now, in very general way, the states attorney has said that Santalucia was In partner. ship with Fruin for some time pre- vious to the date of this agreement.
 Now, the evidence does not bear him out and it is the evidence of his witness that he is bound by. You is- member that MT. Moore was asked that question by the states attorney when Santalucia became a partner of Fruin and he said January l. 1887. He asked if he was a partner with Santalucia and he said not un- til he became member of the firm. whatever Francis Fruin might have done, prior to January 1, 1887, may not be used against | Further than that, if the court pleaSes, if the admission trans gresses the other defendants there Is no allegation against Olsen in this that he conspired with Fruin, nothing at all. And again I repeat there is nothing in the in- that Francis Fruin did to cheat the city of Wa terbury. Just because Francis Fruin received a gross of $295, 5,000 for a period of two years and three months does not prove that he pur- chased to that amount. The evil lence that was there for identifica- ton was for furnishing equipment and that meant, of course, help, gas- oline, all the expenses which go with the conduct of that business; and just because there is a gross of | b295 ,000 it doesn't state that there was any profit or any attempt to cheat or dyraud by Francis Fruin to the City of Waterbury. It does- a't show that the city was cheated. The other conclusion that could be irawn and most reasonable, too, that the city profited by the fur aishing of equipment. So, if the court pleases, it is inadmissible | against Santalucia and any of the | I respectfully submit | hat it is inadmissible, and we'll go | 'ver it again. that just because a nan doesn't pay taxes, 1t cant be inferred from that that he didn't | furnish equipment to the City of | Waterbury. I respectfully object to .hH tNctfrrnY1v ay1d cau that if nssryLt |