The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-05-17
Trial Jury Could Draw
 differences From Story
tconttnued from Page D

warning from the court is not sufn- cient to protect the rights of these defendants. I make the objection to the states attorney then. Now, instead of letting it go at that, the states attorney makes worse state ments, if the court pleases, more un- fair. Now, if we are driven to it we will have to pursue our remedy aud respectfully submit that just a mild warning that you give him is not sufficient to cure the evils that have been done.'
 Tt is hard to draw the line as to what is proper argument and what isn't,' replied Judge Inglis, and l think I'll decide in this to instruct the jury to take no note of what the states attorney said. l think that is all I'm called upon for at thls time. y
 Replying to Attorney Healey's mo- ton to strike out Browns testimony Judge Inglis said that there was enough connection between John ston's bank account and the trans actions of the Waterbury Trust company to allow the evidence to stand.
 Judge Inglis called the morning recess following the arguments, and apparently, at conference of de- fense counsel during the 15 minute adjournment, 1t was decided to make no move for mistrial.
 Court Reconvenes
 When court reconvened, Special Prosecutor Alcorn continued queS- tioning Brown concerning payments made by the city to Frank Burns Santalucia, whom the grand jury termed a favored contractor"
 Previously, numerous payments of checks to John s. Johnston, with city funds, were the subject ot Browns testimony. A comparison ot the amount of money left on deposit in the Johnston account-with the amount represented in the checks paid by the city, required the greater portion of Browns testi- mony.
 Amounts On Deposit
 Amounts left on deposit were al- ways a fraction of the amounts paid There were numerous references to checks drawn on the account of Johnston, following the issuance of city check. The checks drawn on the Johnston account were paid at the Waterbury Trust Company Brown testified.
 Tn 1880, Santalucia receive $8,- 567.OO from the city, Brown testified, from an item set aside for the pur- chase of a dump truck.
 In 1881, 48 vouchers to Santalucia, represented payments by the city of $8,2O8.50.
 In Various Banks
 Also referring to the year 1881, concerning Santalucia, Brown testi- fled that $26, ,404.03 was deposited by him in various banks including the Merchants Trust Co.,, Waterbury Trust Co. and Citizens & Manufac- turers' National.
 Payments amounting to $17 ,526.50 were made to Santalucia by the city in 1882, of which $1,738.00 was de- posted at the Waterbury Trust Co.,, Brown said.
 And in 1883, the city paid Santa lucna $1O,857O0, of which $2091 was deposited. Brown testified that in that year tax records indicated Santalucia owned but one four dump truck.
 Payments totalllng $4l, ,49875 were made in 1884, and total of $6,- 241.58 was deposited. Again the tax lists revealed that Santalucia owned one truck, Brown said. Several large checks were cashed at the Waterbury Trust Co. without going through the Santalucia bank &C., count, Brown said.
 In August there were five cashed for a total of $10,371.75, all on the same day. A similar circumstance occurred in December, when five cheeks for $11,064 were cashed in a single day.
 Of the $6,24158 deposited that year, only $1,192 was ill city checks, and the balance in cash, Brown tes- tified.
 Of $T,24l.65 paid by the city to Santalucia by check, only $936.l5 in cheeks were deposited, Brown said, while $9,767.30 was placed in the account in cash, making a total of $l0,703.45.
 No Record of Balance
 He said that he had no record of what became of the balance of the money.
 When Brown started to offer ad-
 T. :. " n--- '