The Waterbury Democrat., 1944-09-20
StoIfi TrioI On Today
tcontinued from Page D

lengthy questioning by Mrs. Kil- martin by the prosecution and de- fense, and questioning of the coun- sel by Judge Munger.
 Cassidy Objects
 Atty. Cassidy objected to the of- fer of the 1887 record book as an exhibit on the ground 1t was not an original record but had been composed by copying from other records. The book purportedy contained names of all presonS ad- mitted as electors in 1887.
 Mrs. Kilmartin had testified she found the book in the town clerks office after she took office in 1858, admitting that she did not know who made the entries in 1t. Judge Munger commented that there was no marking on the book to indicate what 1t was and there was nothing to show what 1t was except for the testimony of the town clerk.
 Judge Munger commented, we have to see that the entries were made by the town clerk. All this witness knows is that she found the book. It is obviously some sort of record but we ought to have some evidence that would make this book clearly within the meaning Of the statute" The statute referred to was the one specifying keeping ot elector records by the town clerk.
 The book was rendered merely for Identification purposes at that time, but later was accepted as an ex- hihit on agreement of the counsel.
 Still later, Miss Minahan, veteran employe of the office, who was called to the stand shortly after l:So, identified 1t as an official elector record.
 Testimony given by Mrs. Kilmars tin on cross. examination disclosed that a Michael Stolfi was given the electors oath Sept, g, 1887. The town clerk stated the 1887 book showed that fact,
 Marked Exhibits
 Despite the objection of Attorney Cassidy that the records were not original, Judge Munger permitted their introduction as exhibits. The defense attorney claimed some Of they were in the same handwriting them were made from notes, since and all entries appeared to be made at the same time. He evidently was making way for claim later in the trial that errors may have been made in copying and that the rec ords could not be held to be apso- lutely reliable.
 During cross s-examination of Miss | Minahan, Attorney Cassidy drew out testimony that names of all persons who applied to become voters in 1887 were entered in the electors book for that year. Names of those who were found unqualified were crossed out in red ink, the witness testified. She added, however, that the procedure followed in subSe- quent years was different.
 Indications were that the defense will be based on the same lines followed in city court. Stolfi IS ex- pected to claim that his name was on the electors lost, with no objec- ton voiced by authorities, and therefore he did not vote fraudu- Iently. The name of his cousin IS expected to be drawn in an attempt to show the election officials may have been confused by presence of another identical name and there- fore neglected to entr the name of the accused in the record when he became a voter.
 It is the defense contention that 1 Cousin Stolu took his voters oath in 1887, and that no record was made of the time the accused took 1t.
 At the opening of the trial por- ton of the testimony given In city court was read Into the superior court record by the states attorney by agreement of counsel. The testi- mony concerned Stolfi's residence in this city and his election as city selectman. He stated he lived at 67 Wood street from 1883, moving to 1i8 Hill street in 1888 or 1889. He was elected a selectman in 194i. he said, The Michael Stolfi who was admitted as a voter in 1887 was listed as a resident of 67 Wood street.