The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-06-13
Waterbury on that date? A. I did.
 o. And what did you do?
 Started With Lewis


 Started With Lewis
 A. started my investigation on that day by having a conference with States Attorney Lewis, As- sistant States Attorney Fitzgerald and MT. Allen. The following day, February 5, went to the city hall here in Waterbury and on that day, I talked with the controller, Mir. Rowland; talked with MT. Purcell and I talked with the accused Hor- gan in the basement of the city hall. MT. Horgan told me at that time that he was superintendent of the building, that he had em- ployed under him three men.
 Objection by MT. Slade over- ruled; objection by Atty. Peck.
 Alcorn-My answer is that of course MT. Horgan is 8 full con- spirator in this case, the conspir- acy having been established, and the statement made by him is ad- missible in this case against all the accused.
 Jury excused by the court.
 Judge: What is the statement?
 Alcorn: I'll ask MT. Hickey to de- tail it, your honor.
 A. I asked MT. Horgan at that time of he was superintendent of the building and he told me he was, and asked him if he had janitors working under him and he told me that he had and he gave their names as Carroll, Kemp and Brice. I asked him where the storeroom was that had been used to store the records and he showed me where it was. I asked him to show me the boiler room and he showed me where 1t was. And I asked him if any records had been taken from the storeroom to the boiler room and he told me they had and I asked him who gave him the orders to do it and he told me he could not tell me at that time.
 Murray Protests
 Atty. Murray: Your honor please, the ruling is that any statement of conspirator made against himself is admissible against himself only; otherwise it becomes hearsay unless it Is the conversation and State- ments made in furtherance of the conspiracy. The situation as we have here is that this converse tion is such, and in the absence of the other defendants is therefore not substantial: it becomes hearsay because it can't be used as an ad- mission against Horgan because he has already testified here in this case unless the states attorneys attitude is that he wants to con- tradict his own witness. I submit, your honor, that it is not admissible for any purpose.
 Further argument by Attorneys Cassell, Crawford and Healey.
 Judge: Do you have any authority, MT. Alcorn, which indicates that a declaration of one conspirator is ad- rinissible against others unless it is 8 declaration made in pursuance of the conspiracy?
 Alcorn Explains
 I have one here before me now that the acts and declaration of one cor1spirator made to further the ob- ject of conspiracy are admissible against all. By the allegation of the information. you will recall that this information covers the period from 1880 to May 19, 1888 and that throughout--I think in more than one place in the information--the allegation is made that certain acts were done by the accused in further ance of the conspiracy and that cer- tain records had been destroyed in furtherance of this conspiracy and to cover up the acts which the several of the accused had previous. ly committed in furtherance of this conspiracy. Now, the statement made to the witness is in furtherance of the conspiracy because it is in line with the concealment which ap- parently had been determined upon by the various conspirators with re- spect to the act done. Now, MT. Horgan was superintendent of the building. We will show later that MT. Morgan told MT. Hickey--and he has already testified--that he mt these papers-.these documents