The Waterbury Democrat., 1941-03-07

JOHN S. JOHNSON ., the court. The situation was one which rendered 1t peculiarly f1eces- sary for isle court In the proper dis- charge of its duty not only to in- struct the jury as to the legal prin- ciples Involved, but also to outline clearly 70 them the claims on the one side and the other, and within reasonable limits to indicate the evi- dence bearing upon the issues so presented. This the court did and ir prcpei way. That 1t may have devoted more words to the recital of the states claims and the evidence pertinent to them than to those of the defendants, is neither unreason- abe nor a matter for proper coin- plaint, particularly in view of the fact that none of the defendants whose assignments we are now con- sider.ng took the stand to testify to his version of the matters in question. Tn Q few isolated instance es the court failed to mention all oi the defendants claims or evidence bearing upon the issue under dis- cuEsion as is not surprising in @ charge of this length, but the as- signments pertaining thereto can- not be sustained, particularly in tho light of the courts express caution to the jury that the decision of all questions of fact lay exclusively in their riovifice, and that for that reason in referring to the evidence 1t wished to make clear that If; I omit all reference to some of the evidence which has been introduced or to some of the claims of counsel thereon please do not conclude from that that I think such evidence or claim $ of no conceqlence. It is obviously impossible '. to speak of all of the evidence ..S Where I omit reference to some of the evidence I assure you that 1t, is with DO iii- tention Of minimizing the import ance of that evidence or of ynagfii- flying the importance of the .evi- dence to which I refer. It Is yonr recollection of what <. the Arevi- dence Is ,,.,. {. which controls, ,} not mine, and it is your function, not mine, to appraise" its value. .s' $a Single Conspiracy s. s 5,@.
 One ofs the principal errors, claim ed is that the trial court instructed the jury that they might find the defendants guilty If 1t was proved that there was a single conspiracy either to defraud the city of Water bury or to violate one or more of several statutes or charter provi- slons alleged in the information. The court ernphatically instructed the jury that If they found that there was not a single conspiracy, but several distinct conspiracies in which certain of the defendants joined, the defendants who were parties only to the latter could not. be found guilty. The defendants contention Is that the information charges two or more conspiracies, one to defraud the city and the other to violate certain charter and statute provi- siors. This is based on a Iniscon- ceptioN of the purport of the infor- nation and of the true nature of the conspiracy charged, upon a fail- ure to distinguish between the of- ftnse and its purpose. The crime charged was 8 single conspiracy with the dual object or purpose of defrauding the city and of violating certain charter and statute pfovi- sions. and not two conspiracies, each to accomplish one of these ends. The gisr of the offense of conspiracy is the unlawful combination and not the accomplishment of an objec- tive CT objectives. whether lawful or unlawful.
 In discussing the states conten- ton that the evidence established a single conspiracy, the court referred to its claim that running through all of the transactions by which the city was claimed to have been de- frauded was the same method of operation. After mentioning the presenting of the alleged fictitious claim against the city, the mechan- ics of obtaining the payment from the city without the approval of the board of finance and the issuing of the city's check. and the cashing thereof in Q way to conceal the Identity of the one cashing 1t. claimed to have been involved ip the method utilized in all cases. the court continued: Such . uniformity og method does not necessarily prove that all of the transactions through which tt ran were the activities of . single group. It is. of course, pos- siole that various separate groups acting Independently may use the same method to vietinnIxe c single person. But here hgain it is ape parent that where iao or more groups of persons having one or more individuals common to aiL the groups use Che same Iisib0ds tU ace tomr.ssh similar ptlvposes. the fact tbat thcy do use the same method |