The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-08-08

NOW, OH LnC QueSUlO1 Ol Ddn Peters-a poor old man who was a wreck physically and financially, waiting for something to end his trouble, sitting in Bristol, when the state appears liEe a bolt out of a clear blue sky; comes the accusa- ton that he is a criminal and charged with a prison penalty; one of gang of 27 men who were join- ed together to steal over a million dollars from the City of Waterbury. He is accused of corrupt agree- ment started in 1880 with @ firm Browning in New York. I say that 1t is difficult to conclude that he is part of this plan which the prose cutor, I say, has drawn. And then to let 1t be known publicly that once he was successfully financially, but with the wheel of time against him, he had to imply the provisions of the bankruptcy act which was an act for just such purposes, to relieve an unfortunate man who had grown old and gray with his attempt to stand the tide.
 The allegation in the information is that he received payment for truck hire never furnished by him Now, to prove this accusation the state rests upon one fact that Dan Peters didn't pay taxes upon trucks either in Waterbury or Bristol, and because he didn't pay taxes, the state wants you to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that 1t was im- possible for him to have rented trucks from other truckers and to obtain a contract with the city of Waterbury to furnish trucks at a fixed price and then to go out and hire trucks from other truckers and rent them to the City of Waterbury Now, I want to say again, and urge this fact upon you, that If Dan Peters didn't furnish truck hire, did- mt have contract with the City of Waterbury to furnish truck hire that MT. Hickey with his corps of assist ants-but personally by his own out standing ability-would have pro- duced one witness, perhaps another Purcell, who would have told you unequivocably that Dan Peters did mt have contract with the City of Waterbury.
 Now, what was the contract? MT. Hickey gave you the skeleton when he testified of the conversation with Dan Peters. No. MT. Hickey had these little chats with Peters, Olsen, and others with the purpose of using any statement they might make against them. There is no one to corroborate them. I say that MT. Hickey didn't tell us all of what Dan Peters said to him. He didn't tell you that Peters told him all about Andrew Larson, that he was in Wa terbury one day, and met Andrew LArson-
 (Objection by Alcorn)
 CASSIDY: That is my claim, if the court pleases. MT. Hickey did mt tell all. He mentioned Larson and say he didn't tell all about the conversation.
 JUDGE: It seems to me you are going to go outside of the evidence that is in. It appears that there is no evidence of any such conversa- tion.
 Larson Mentioned CASSIDY: He mentioned Larson If the court pleases.
 JUDGE: Yes.
 CASSIDY: And I say that MT Hickey didn't tell us all about Lar. son-his reasonable conclusion iron Mir. Peters testimony.
 JUDGE: I'm afraid I will have tc disagree with you. MT. Cassidy
 CASSIDY: Well, ladies and gen. tlemen, you do remember that MT Hickey mentioned the fact that Dar Peters said that he had rented trucks to the city
 (Objection by Alcorn) He saic nothing of the kind.
 JUDGE: I think I will leave i to the recollection of the jury tt control whether there was any suct evidence in the case.
 CASSIDY: and that Larson furnished the trucks. Now, If vol remember the states attorney, MT Alcorn, Jr., in his opening argumen indicated to you that these pay, mentS were made to Peters periodi cally, weekly. Now, I say from tha that 1t is perfectly clear and tha the conclusion is perfectly reason able that from these weekly pay ments 1t is perfectly clear that Dai Peters had contract with the cit, of Waterbury to furnish trucks ant
 that these payments were mad each week and that the $35 he tol, MT. Hickey about was his compen sation and that the balance re maining from those weekly pay ments went to MT. L sraonoeh ments went to MT. Larson of tn truck firm.
 Larsons Trucking Company still in business. If that wasn't tn arrangement If 1t wasn't tn agreement-with Larson,s Truckin Company, 1t would have been tn easiest thing in the world for M Hickey to prove that evidence. An say 1t was incumbent upon tn state in order to get that questlo in the realm beyond a reasonabl doubt to prove that with the Lar son company that that wasn't tn agreement that was made. Da Peters was paid, in effect, a certai amount of money. It is perfectl apparent that that was in accord ance with an agreement to furnis truck hire to the city of Water bury and say he got $35 a wee from it. The state has proved b the purchase orders that the true hire was furnished by Peters. Tn state has proved 1t and again I sa that if 1t wasn't Larson and if thi wasn't the arrangement tn a the state could have with this powe and authority-could have prove Lhat this wasn't the agreement. Charles O'COnnor Now, Charles O'Connor-here a a lawyer, corporation counsel fe sixteen years. The best part of h professional life was devoted to tn interest of the city of Waterbur, Now, Charlie O'Connor needs Il greater endorsement. The informa fiay, mae that ha coitlfif1'f ha ralta