The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-03-21

rental of equipment. $8,557.0o.
 Defense counsel objected to the admission of that volume in evil dence, and Judge Inglis took the occasion to instruct the jury that the book was to be considered as evidence solely against Santalucia and not against the other accused.
 He said that the jury could take the inference from the exhibit that Santalucia had filed no list of per- sonal property in 1880 for taxation, He explained that the rule in a conspiracy case is that any admis- sion or declaration by one of the accused, If made in the pursuance of the conspiracy, is admissible against all the accused.
 This clearly was not made in the pursuance of a conspiracy" he said. The file of tax list, he said, is clearly outside of any conspiracy claimed.
 Not Admissible
 For that reason, he continued, the evidence was not admissible against any defendant except Santalucia himself. The jury, Judge Inglis. remarked could consider it an ad- mission that Santalucia had nc personal property in 1930, If you believe such to be reasonable in- ference,' he added.
 Finally, he cautioned the jury, "ir considering the guilt or innocence of the accused, which you will do you must be very careful not to con- sider that inference against any but Santalucia."
 Scannel Identified the 1881 book of assessment records, which showed a return made by Santalucia as o1 June 6, 1881. In answer to a ques- ton from Atty. George Crawford Alcorn said that he intended te remain within the rule of the court and offer 1t only against Santalucia
 Atty. Murray objected, calling the courts attention to a statement made by the special prosecutor last Friday when the arguments over the admission of the tax list opened He read from the record a state ment made by Alcorn to the effect that he desired to present the books for 1881 through 1897 to show the returns made by Santalucia as com pared with the bills submitted tc the city for rental of equipment.
 Att. Murray said that he would object to the admission of the rec ord to show anything but persona, equipment. Judge Inglis replied that if he admitted it, it would be only for that purpose.
 Cassidy Objects
 Atty. John H. Cassidy asked the witness if he was acquainted with Santalucia's signature. When the witness replied in the negative, Cas- sidy objected to the exhibit, stating that there was no way to be sure that Santalucia had signed 1t.
 He also called attention to the fact that the return was made out June 6, 1881, showing Santalucia's property Gas of May l, 1931." There is no proof, he said, that on May 2 Santalucia had no personal prop erty.
 "That goes to the weight of the exhibit, rather than the admissi- bility," reflected Judge Inglis, as he admitted the list.
 To the jury, he cautioned, You will find on the list the name of Frank Hayes and the name of Ellen c. Hayes. However, I will admit the evidence as against only Santa lucia. It has bearing on the case only insofar as his failure to list returns is concerned.
 This reference was in connection with a statement by Alcorn last Fri day that the tax lists would show ] definite connection between San- and Mayor Hayes. In view of Judge Inglis' ruling, this will not De allowed, apparently.
 List Signed
 Alcorn pointed out that the 1881 list contained not personal prop erty in the name of Santalucia. The ist. he said, was signed and sworn before Thomas A. Shanahan, an Alcorn cited him as a de- 'endant in the case.
 Attorney Murray objected to the admission of such statements, stat ng that they might be "prejudicial ,r misconstrued at the present ,ime." He said this in view of the statements made by Alcorn last Friday.
 When the 1882 list was offered md objected to, Special Prosecutor Alcorn said that he was not offer- ng it to show the ownership of my real estate. but only the failure Q return list of personal prop ,rty.
 Judge Inglis pointed out that the ist was not signed by Santalucia md therefore could not be entered against him.
 Attorney Thomas F. McDonough oined Attorney John H. Cassidy at his point in objecting to the admis- ion of any lists on the ground that hey showed property as of May l. NcDonough claimed that there was 10 proof that Santalucia did not 'uy $50,000 worth of equipment the ollowing day.
 "We'll show in the next list that 1e didn't buy any $50000 worth, re- Special Prosecutor Alcorn.
 Judge Advises
 When the 1892 list was rejected IS an exhibit, Judge Inglis suggested 10 Special Prosecutor Alcorn that le take an exception to the ruling the special prosecutor lad not considered taking the eX- 'eption until the judge advised him. The 1893 list, containing refer 'nce to tax bills sent to Frank Hayes was offered and excluded.
 When Alcorn referred to the bill 'eing sent to Santalucia, c. o. Frank Hayes, 76 East Main street. Attor- ley Patrick Healey objected.
 Judge Inglis remarked that the notation, c. 0. Frank Hayes "has no significance in this case" vas signed by Santalucia, and was
 One sheet in the 1884 tax book admitted in evidence. The l935 and .936 sheets were omitted, however, because they were not signed by y4 toll VAtn IL Il