The Waterbury Democrat., 1941-05-14

shop room at the rear of the bulld- ing, which is ct the corner of Union and Prospect streets.
 MT. Scully denied he knew there was any liquor in the room, and de- nied selling liquor. He said he had brought the liquor either the Inorn- ing of the raid, April l2, or the day before, at a local package store, He intended 1t, he said, to use in @ party for Q local man who was get- ting married. He put the liquor In his car but e friend, whose name he said he could not remember, later took 1t out of the car, he said.
 MT. Scully asserted he did not know how the liquor got Into the place where 1t was found ol who brought 1t In. He said the liquol was found in e room off the hallway. He denies knowledge of whom the empty bottles found In the paint shop belonged to,
 Analysis Made
 Testimony was introduced to show that analysis of one of the bottles of 86 proof liquor In the carton re- vealed 0 38,s0 percent amount of liquor. After the state had rested It's case, Atty. Martin E, Caine, counsel for MT. Scully, moved that the charge be dropped, asserting the state had not established prima facie case, but one based only on suspicion. He asked If the court thought the accused would sell adulterated liquor. Judge Neary de- nied the motion for dismissal ct that time.
 Chief Liquor Inspector Simeon Nichols was c state witness, testify ing that his department received several complaints against MT. Scul- ly in l040, written and verbal. When Atty. Caine asked who made the complaints, Inspector Nichols re- piled, John Doe, a good citizen and broken- hearted mother" Atty. Caine requested the reply be strick- en from the record, designating 1t as impertinent, but 1t was brought out that the written complaints were signed In this fashion, accord- Ing to the inspector. Judge Weary indicated willingness to strike out the remark apparently feeling 1t ir- relevant, although he pointed out that Atty. Caino had not specified in his question whether he meant written or verbal complaints.
 Anonymous Complaints
 Further qui2zing of the inspector as to the verbal complaints in i940 resulted in testimony by MT. Nichols that the complaints were to the ef- feet MT. Scully was selling liquor other than the kind his permit al. lowed him to. Nichols said the ver- bal complaints in i940 were made by telephone and recalled ono was from Q man. one from a woman.
 Pressed by Atty. Caine as to the identity of the complainants, tho inspector said that he asked the name of each complainant but they refused to give their names. He admitted his experience had shown some cases where persons com. plained because of envy or "sore. neSs."
 MT. Nichols said no investigation had followed 6 complaint made In December, ie40 and when Atty. Caine asked why the period from December to April was permitted to lapse before on investigation was made, the inspector said that the liquor division has only l7 agents and there are over 1000 liquor out lets in the state. He said one com- plaint came to him In Q round. about" way, and explained he meant through Q third party.
 Defense Contention
 The defense contended through out that the place where the liquor was not on the premises for which MT. Scully was given @ beer permit.
 MT. Scully said a liquor inspector had been in his place on the We'd nesday before the April i2 raid, and then the inspector had suspected there were secret panels in the place, but when he lfet was appar- ently satisfied there were not. In- spectors have frequently tried the door leading to the hallway, he sa.d. The bar was placed there on the order of Inspector Klein, MT. scully said. He said the paint shop owner had moved about three months ego