The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-03-18

| 4AkS Atd1uC uACu PkVAnAACntAy
 in yesterdays testimony.
 0. How long have you lived in Waterbury, MT. Scannel?
 A. All my life.
 o. And your occupation?
 A. Clerk in the assessors office. PICK UP GAL 2-
 o. And how long have you been clerk?
 A. believe since the first week of April, 1884.
 o. And what is your position in the assessors off1ce-as to various duties?
 A. Routine clerk.
 o. Now, MT. Scannell, you have access to the books?
 A. That is right.
 i o. And you probably work on them constantly so that they're a matter of public records of the city of Waterbury. I wish you would produce the list of Frank Santalucia you have for 1930. You have it here?
 A. Yes.
 Cassidy: If the court pleases, if an offer is to be made would like to argue this point.
 Alcorn: I was going to offer them as exhibits.
 Scannel: There is no record of Frank Santalucia.
 Cassidy: That is the evidence that I object to. I move that go out at the present time.
 At this point, the jury was ex- cused by Judge Ingls.
 Judge: AS understand it, the argument is to be on the motion to strike out the answer to the last question, MT. Cassidy?
 Cassidy: think we ought to go into the whole thing. assumed that the witness was questioned just to identify the books; instead of that the answer that he made was irresponsive, if the court pleases
 Judge: Will you read the question: (Question and answer read.) Judge: I think it is irresponsive and may go out.
 Alcorn (referring to tax lists for the years from 1931-193D.
 If yor honor pleases, with respect to one of these lists, take, for in- stance, 1932-I might as well let your honor know-you will find it listed: Frank Santalucia, co Frank Hayes, 76 East Main street" and signed by Frank Hayes, 48-50 Grand St.-no personal property re- turned. There is another one-1933: Frank Santalucia, GO Frank Hayes, same real estate listed and signed by Santalucia-personal property, Ford truck, $500, and one other truck, $200 It also shows the re- lationship entirely between Santa lucia and Hayes. Now, the next one for 1884 is: Santalucia, GO Frank Hayes, same real estate property listed. That is unsigned-Ford dump truck, 1892, $150; and then the 1885 list is signed by Santalucia and signed by Thomas R. Harding-1 Ford dump truck, 1882, $100. I'm reading this, your honor, from my own memorandum. feel it is cor rect. The 1886 list-same real estate, personal property-one Ford truck, 1886, $320. Then we come to 1937- real estate and dwelling at Highland avenue, $3650, and signed by Fred Balton agent. His personal property one Ford dump truck $250 and signed by MT. Santalucia; personal property for 198 Mill street, un- signed; one Ford dump truck, $250; a Stakeholder truck, $185; Stude- baker compressor, $40; Ford pick up, $1OO; crane, $100 Ford dump truck, $1O0; crane, $100." That is the situation with respect to this matter, and these records are public records and are admissible as such, and also admissible in connection with the relationship that exists between Hayes and Santalucia. Attorney Mur- ray: My opinion is that the very &C., ceptance of those exhibits are mis- leading and deceptive. MT. Alcorn called attention to the fact that on a certain list for two or three years appears property of MT. Santalucia and that MT. Hayes is the agent and gives his address. I'm stating, your homer, to show that MT. Hayes mother holds a mortgage on one of MT. Santalucia's pieces of property on Grand street. It dates back to about 1880; and the statutes speci- fically declares that if the mortga- gor doesn't file his return, that the mortgagee may list the property in July if the mortgagor doesn't do so in June; and that is all that it means.
 Alcorn: MT. Hayes name is there. Judge: Did you say that there is a statue which premits making list. Murray: By the mortgagee if the mortgagor does not. If your honor pleases, if he doesn't file in June, the mortgagee may file in July to save the lO% penalty: and every bank in the city of Waterbury does 1t every year.
 Ownership Denied Cassidy: Of course, now the state Is claiming that because Frank I Santalucia listed his property on Grand street, therefore he owns it; as a matter of fact, he doesn't own 1t. He doesn't own this property which stands in his narne-just in his name. that's all. But he doesn't own the property. Now, the state intro duces the list to prove that he uocs own it just because somebody has