The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-03-21
Text or Judge I,glis'
 Ruling On Objections

WIlcII CVuAI 4O1uld11y SOlAfC11CN this morning, the first developmer1 of the day and week was Judg 1nglis' decision, sustaining the ob jections of counsel of the defens on the admission of probate record and assessment lists. His ruling wa voiced as follows:
 "On the offer of the probate record that was made last week.
 decided that I ought to sustain
 the objection to it. There are two
 sources of information contained
 in it: the first is that information to the effect that several of the accused were, in a sense, associ- ated in the connection of the pro- bate of the estate of Fruin, as ad- ministrator, creditor, etc.
 "It seems to me that that in- formation, that is, the informa- tion of those accused that hap pened to be associated in the pro- bate of this estate, so far as they are associated, is too remote.
 "It might well form the basis of innuendo and suspicion. It would hardly, I believe, be the basis of any unreasonable infer ence because of that association of the probate of this estate, If they were associated with the conspiracy of the trial. On the other information contained in this probate record is that con- tained in the inventory and ap- praisal of the estate. It seems to me after a rather careful review of the authorities that the rule of law that would be accepted in this state would be that such an inventory is made up solely for the purpose of forming the basis for the administration of that es- tate, and that is not admissible as against the third person on the theory of being a public record, unless 1t would be admissible in action which involves, in some way. the administration of the estate. But although we have no definite authority in this state. I find the way of the authorities elsewhere is that certain inven- tory is not admissible, except in connection with some litigation involving the estate or some ad- ministrator or executive who is charged with the property listed in the inventory not admissible against outside parties. And 1t seems to me that the way in this state makes that distinction with reference to the valuation of property in tax lists and also a careful ruling which does admit an inventory on will contests in- dicates that the purpose of this estate, at least is towards that view; namely, that purpose being solely to form a basis for the ad- ministration of the estate. The inventory made up for that pur- pose is not admissible in other action. It doesn't in any way in- volve the estate. For that reason, I conclude that I ought to exclude the probate record and sustain the objection to it.
 With reference to various as- sessment lists which we started to consider the other day and the list that I ought to rule upon as they are offered and when they are offered. But I'm convinced that they were not admissible as a public record and as against these accused. I apprehend that the only basis upon which any of these tax lists would be admitted against all of the accused would be on the theory that they were official documents made up by as- seSsors and as read the au- thorities, 1t seems to me where there is a ruling here that such lists are made up solely for the purpose of assessing tax and that they, therefore, are admissible only in actions involving such assess ment. They are not admissible in any other action. And again it seems to me that, although there seems to be some conflict of au- thority there, a careful review as could be made up is that the way of authorities is along that line and insofar as that is concerned. these tax lists may be offered on the theory that they are ofiicial records and, therefore, admissible against all of the accused: my ruling is going to be that they are inadmissible. If any evidence should be offered against some particular accused as an admis- sion against them. that may be another question. but as I say. I think if the state desires to offer any of them that would vary so differently, that it would be bet