The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-07-25
HAYES REQUEST
 FOR CHARGE FILED
(Continued from Page D

ty for his own use or for the use of another, or made false entries on tho city's books; or presented or aided in procuring any fraudulent claims against the city or embedded for himself or another any money or property of the city while he held public office; CT that any Of the accused hired private detectives without compliance with the law nevertheless, the commission Of all those crimes in themselves would not justify the Jury in finding a verdict of uilty."
 If the jury should find that any of the defendants C. all or them,' the judge is asked to say, commit ted the above mentioned crimes, and yet failed to find that the de- fendants conspired each with tho other to commit the said crimes, 1t is the duty of th' jury to report a verdict of not guilty"
 No Direct Evidence
 Other excerpts from the request are as follows:
 That there is no direct evidence in the case from which the jury could lind that the defendant Hayes entered into a conspiracy with any of the persons mentioned in the in- formation"
 "That If the jury should find that the defendant Hayes was inefficient or negligent or used bad judgment nevertheless in the absence of evil dence beyond reasonable doubt that he knowingly, wilfully, fraudulently and corruptly conspired to cheat and defraud the City of Water bury, it becomes the duty of the jury to find Hayes not guilty.
 Right to Assume Honesty
 The claim is made that Hayes had the right to assume that the conduct and actions of the city employees and officials was honest, in the ab- sence of any contrary facts. It is al- so claimed that the state has failed to present sufficient evidence against Hayes.
 Each member of the jury should adhere to his judgment on the evid- ence, the judge is asked to charge even if it results in disagreement Each juror should abide by his opinion, in spite of any possible ex- pense to the state.
 Not Proof Of Guilt
 Judge Inglis is asked to tell the fury that the fact the states attor- ney has filed information against Hayes in no proof of his guilt. He is asked to tell the jury that the states attorney might have been misinformed.
 "Negligence, carelessness, poor Judgment or lack of investigation even if they are proved, are of themselves insufficient to justify a conviction in the absence of guilty intent to knowingly and corruptly conspire in general conspiracy to cheat and defraud the city of Wat erbury," the writ continues.
 Draw No differences
 Even if Hayes performed acts which aid in carrying out the con- spiracy, but were performed without corrupt motives or knowledge of the conspiracy, he is not guilty, 1t is claimed. Judge Inglis is asked to tell the jury to draw no inferences from the fact that the court overruled numerous defense objections to ad- mission of state evidence.
 The jury should scrutinize and re- teive with caution the testimony of Edward e. Levy, Charles E. Will 1ianson and Harry Mackenzie. as fl1ey are accomplices, Attorney Mur- ray says. Tn addition, if the jury fir1ds that the witness .James P PurceIl concealed criminal acts he was cognizant of from the proper authorities. the jury may ind nm ar accomplice as well, and scrutn- lze and receive his testimony witn caution.