The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-04-27

ra Twenty.six y.. ;,,sl slips for D0nito Pie
 Cashiers check dated May IS, 1883, payable to Donate Pietraoria to the amount of 5000.
 Three checks in the name of Dan Peters:
 May 10, 1eS2-Daniel Peters $l,- 900.
 August 2s, 1ssS-D. A. Peters $500.
 May IS, 1936-James Peters and D. A. Peters 3,465. Four treasurer's checks: June 5, 1937-$302l.70 Payable to the Waterbury Trust Go.
 June 5, 1937-$2000 Playable to the Waterbury Trust Col November 16, 1s37-$1473 Playable to the Waterbury Trust Col
 January 19, 1938-$1815.25 Pay- able to c. D. Olsen) Slade: I wish, your honor, that you would instruct the jury that the first three checks about which conn., ment has been made that they have not been endorsed, that under the law no endorsement is required.
 Judge Inglis: So that there is no misunderstanding, under the law, as regards these checks which are pay able on their face to the Waterbury Trust Go. and are drawn on the Wa terbury Trust O., in order to nego- tiate those checks the requirements are that there be no endorsement on the back of the check.
 Alcorn: It is perfectly all right if the funds go to the Waterbury Trust Go. But 1t is the claim of the state that these funds did not go to the Waterbury Trust Com pany. Alcorn then offered five de- posit slips under the name of c. D. Olsen--special for the year 1037.
 Minors Checks o. I now show you two treasur- CTS checks. To whom are they pay able?
 A. H. w. Minor. Checks:
 October 29, 1886 ........ $2,710 December 10, 1936 ..~... $1,715
 Q. I show you what purports to be another treasurer's check. Whether or not that is part of the records of the Waterbury Trust Co.,? A. Yes.
 Objections by defense counsel. Alcorn: That check stands on a little different basis from the others.
 Judge: If that is the situation, I'll excuse the jury.
 Jury excused.
 Alcorn: Your honor will recall in the information that there are two allegations: One related to the pay ment of $5,O00 for indexing the city charter anothed $6000 for index ing the same charter. Your honor will recall that the evidence shows that they got no further than the typewritten form stored away-noth- ing having been done with 1t.
 Now, this particular check-treas- urer's check-is dated December 28, 1887; the amount is $6000. Now, what we propose to show is that that check was given in exchange for check of the same amount giv- en to Francis P. Guilfoile. We can only reconstruct 1t because there is nothing which we can fasten 1t ex- cept by the sheets which have been destroyed-in no way can we fasten the amount of money that went to MT. Guilfoile. It appears here that the irregularity appears or, the face; the same scheme with respect to the payment of this particular amount has been shown adopted and fol- lowed in other payments with re- spect to the accused.
 Judge: Do understand that some records will show that the check for $6O0O issued to Francis Guilfoile by the city had about this same date?
 "Cover Up"
 Alcorn: It would show that it was yes, your honor. This was used to cover 1t up.
 Crawford: The check could not be given in exchange for anything. The check never went out of the book keeping routine of the bank. It shows on its face that that is so. The amount, no more than said, fn- er-departmental transfer of funds. In the nature of the case that could not be the basis of any claim of ex- change as between 8 negotiable check from the outside in this in- stance. The funds were involved in bookkeeping matter entirely with in the bank. Now, 1t was transferred from one inter-departmental &C., count to another interdepartmental account. The instrument itself shows that 1t never got into any private account.
 Cassidy: There is nothing in the information with respect to this par- ticular check, no allegation there that MT. Guilfoile received $5,0O0. Judge: I suppose it is plain that it is similar transaction which makes it admissible even though there was no allegation specifically in the information. Alcorn: It Is part of the system {; that is the way put it, your honor please, produced by these conspira- tors of the city of Waterbury. Cassidy: What conspirators? Alcorn: All of them right here. Explains Theory Judge: Your theory is that in a ! situation like this, for a single check to the City of Waterbury, there is a l number of checks represented by MT. Olsen of the Waterbury Trust Company and that MT. Olsen used that city check and made out this , treasurer's check for the same amount?
 Alcorn: That is 1t exactly. Judge: Then what is your theory as to what was done with the city check?
 Alcorn: The city check would gc , through the bank but 1t would never , be entered anywhere in the bank. Il would go through, the check would go back to the Citizens Bank where 1t was drawn from, and from there to the City of Waterbury where they u,rs,lI h,,,.y1 ff ,,y,