The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-08-15
the jury until this morning.
 Doors Will Be Omen

DO0rS VIII Be Open
 It had been presumed that Judge Inglis might lock the courtroom door and rule that no one should enter or leave the room during his charge Before court today, however, he said that no such rule would be placed into effect unless too great 8 commotion were made.
 The jury, on the brink of Its de- Alterations to determine the guilt oi innocence of the 19 men on tria. before them, convened today for the 107th day of the trial, which opened last November 29.
 Explains Conspiracy Resuming his charge today, Jude Inglis told the jury that it was es- sential for him to make plain to them what conspiracy is.
 He said that a criminal con- spiracy is a confederation or com bination of two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to accomplish 8 lawful purpose by unlawful means.
 He said hat two things. are nec- essary for proof of conspiracy. It must be proven, he said that a per- son participated in a confederation or combination with one or more persons and that the purpose or combination was either to accom- plish an unlawful purpose or If the purpose was lawful that the means were unlawful.
 Gist of Conspiracy
 Judge 1nglis said that the un- lawful combination is the gist of the conspiracy charge.
 It IS not necessary, he said, for the state to prove that the unlawful purpose of the conspiracy was ever actually accomplished.
 He continued that 1t was only necessary to show that conspirators acted in concert to perform unlaw- ful purposes. If g person knows the combination exists and does some thing in furtherance of it. he be- comes g member of 1t, and liable as a conspirator, Judge Inglis said. The state very rarely can prove that a group sat down and made an agreement to conspire, Judge Inglis, said. and the proof can very rarely be offered by direct evidence. More often, he said, 1t is shown by a repeti- ton of acts, and by circumstantial evidence. The jury, however, he said, in inferring from circumstancial evidence, must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, before such a verdict can be returned.
 Planned to Do Them
 If it is shown that a group of men did certain things. he said, it can be reasonably inferred that they planned to do those things. The states case, he said, depended on two major questions, whether or not the city was defrauded, and whether or not the statutes or major portions of the charter were violated.
 If you find that the city was defrauded," he told the jury, you must decide whether the fraud was accomplished by a combination or conspiracy or by individuals" He went on to inform the jury mem- DSES JIldC 1T tiley lOuIlQ lt was a conspiracy then 1t was for them to decide who were the members of the conspiracy.
 Fraud Never Presumed
 Remember, fraud is never to be presumed" said Judge Inglis sol- emnly as he went on to define fraud. The state, he said, must prove fraud beyond any reasonable doubt.
 The first series of transactions claimed by the state as fraudulent was that with Edward c. Levy and the George Browning Go. Judge Inglis said. He summarized Levy's testimony that he had received only $2l. 800 of siIl.ooo paid him by the city.
 Hayes Act Not Illegal
 The aldermanic vote empowering the mayor to enter into contracts to effect reductions in lighting rates was not illegal, Judge Inglis charged the jury. state claims that the mo-