The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-03-21

at that book? Now, will you ex- anime 1t and tell me whether or not Frank J. Santalucia made re- turn on personal property during the year covered by that particular assessment list?
 Objections overruled3 A. No, he didn't.
 o. Will you state whether or not upon examination of that book, a list of taxable property of Frank J. Santalucia was returned as ap- pears on that assessment book?
 Objections sustained.
 Sheet marked for Identification.
 Q. Now, I show you another book and ask you to tell me what that book is.
 A. A tax list of taxable property of certain individuals.
 Q. Do you find there the list of taxable property of Frank J. Santa lucia?
 A. I do.
 e. And was 1t sworn to?
 A. Yes.
 o. Upon what date?
 A. The third day of June, 1883.
 o. And that was kept in due course as public records of the city of Waterbury?
 A. That's right.
 Sheet is offered for Identification.
 Murray: object to the first part of the page.
 Alcorn: I claim 1t as against san- talucia. ....
 Judge: You offer two sheets2
 (Objections to both sheets)
 Judge: I will sustain the objection to the second one; that is, the one that has no signature on 1t. will oyer-rule objection to the first one which has the signature of Frank Santalucia on 1t, and that may be exhibit 232. This is admitted only against Santalucia and not against any other defendant, and it does have 8 varied distinction from other sheets; namely, the page at the top has "c-o Frank Hayes" That has no significance in this case.
 Alcorn: This No. 17550 which is the list of taxable property of Frank J. Santalucia listing items reads: GO Frank Hayes, main office 76 East Main St. Do you know where 76 East Main St. is.
 Objections sustained. After recess-11:45. Q. I show you this book and ask you to tell me what 1t is? A. A book showing tax lists and made public records of the City of Waterbury. @. What year?
 A. 1884. M .tt.., s,
 e. Now, that book contains the lists of the Connecticut Sup ply Company?
 Objection by Attorney Cassidy:
 Cassidy: The other evidence submitted, as understand, is ad- mitted against Frank Santalucia only. It seems to me no that the state attorney should SO state, and further than that, 1t seems to me it involves some lengthy argu- ment; that is, evidence going be- yond Santalucia.
 Judge Inglis excuses the jury.
 Alcorn: It appears, if your honor please, that the evidence so far as the Conn. Supply Co. and Francis Fruin were one and the same - it appears in evidence taht there are certain lists of per- sonal property which appear, and one of them contains the list of Frank Santalucia and another Francis Fruin and another joint ownership of Santaluc:a and the Conn. Supply Co. or Fruin to- gether.
 Judge: Are you referring to the list made in the early part of 1887?
 Alcorn: Yes. Above at the top of page IA of the warrant 1t shows that Frank J. Santalucia, alias Frank Burns, was doing business under the name of Connecticut Supply Company and Frank San- talucia Company, and received ip excess of $l50,000 from the City of Waterbury. Now, the argument made the other day that we pro- pose to offer this evidence and in addition to what is already in, from which the jury could prop erly draw the inference that from Its conception Frank Santalucia was in the Connecticut Supply Company, and it also appeared, think, at the present time. that Leary had his interest in the Conn. Supply Go. In this respect, the Conn. Supply Company was used, as | suggested the other day, as a means of defrauding the City of Waterbury. Now, The Conn. Sup ply Company has received ap- proximately $295 900 in the two years and three or four months that it has been in operation, be- fore the transfer when one-half 1 interest went to Santalucia. I think the inference may be fairly drawn from that document itself that they were then speaking of
 Exhibit 224 Judge Inglis: I'm sorry. I didn't | follow that the inference may be drawn rom what? Alcorn: I'm referring now to states exhibit PA. I think the in- ference may be fairly and properly | drawn from that exhibit that that | was a statement of the interest of Frank Santalucia and Francis Fruin in the Conn. Supply Go. If your honor look at that exhibit, 1t recites at the top under letterhead of the Conn. Supply Co.,: Francis Fruin and Frank Santalucia on a half -and-half i basis. It said Fruin and Santalucia on the letterhead of the Supply Co. Now, at that time, your honor will recall, Francis Fruin was deceased | in February 1887. Fruin was then dead. So 1t was the get-together of what Santalucia's interest was with Fruin in the Conn. Supply Co. on half-and-half basis, so that | while the state may be unable to |