The Waterbury Democrat., 1944-09-21
StoIfiCose To Close To-day
(Continued from Page D

(Continued from Page D not qualified to become an elector,
 Early !n his closing argument Attorney Cassidy stated "the de' fense is not fabricated and the ap' proaeh did not originate In Som' fertile mind with the hope by per fury of having the accused luasee innocent"
 No Perjury Attempted
 Mir, Cassidy said that fl Stolf' had wanted to resort to perjury dur InR the trial he could easily have add he was made 6 voter in lsS0 after he obtained his first citizen ship papers. Many local residents have voted after obtaining only Eheir first papers and they have voted over and over again, the de- tense eontAnded. If the defense hAd wanted to build up Q case based oY perjury 1t could have made such G claim, MT. Cassidy stated.
 stolh voted openly ct all ot the elections specified d9Se through ie4S) and no criticism was made ot his qualifications as a voter, the defense contended, in pointing out khAA there was no fraud involved.
 Surprise Evidence
 Introduced aS c surprise exhibit by the state during the rebuttal were two voting applications filed Tn iea7 by Michael Stolh Of 3l west Farm street, purportedly the appli- cations of the cousin of the accused. They were admitted aS exhibits by the jurist despite a vigorous pros test from Attorney Cassidy, who claimed the evidence was not reeut- tai but new evidence, and that the applications were not those Of the accused and were not pertinent to ,the case. # Judge Munger replied that If the exhibits were not pertinent to the case then they could not harm the accused.
 Pt was the claim of the state that the Michael stolA of ST Wood street who became c voter in 1897 was really tho accused since the other Michael Stolh. tho cousin, had filed two separate applications to vote ila that year. giving his address as West Farm street.
 Only One StOfi
 Attorney Fitzgerald pointed out that only one Michael Stoln was accepted as a voter In that year, and that the address was listed aS B7 Wood street, and that Cousin stolfi, who gave the other address, had evidently been rejected as a voter.
 Threats Made
 Earlier in the morning Stolh re- iterated claims made from the stand yesterday afternoon that Albert Taller, Republican registrar, had threatened him, He claimed that on one occasion Taller had commented, 'T1l fix you" He said that after the voting matter came up last spring. Taller told the mayor he thought stoih should be reported to the FBf.
 On crosS.examination he testified he resigned from his city post only because his friends had advised him to do SO and because some of them thought the charge against him might hamper making of other voters. At the conclusion of the trial Mayor John S, Monagan was called to the stand to identify the letter of resignation. and he testl- lied that he did not ask Stolh to resign.
 Character Witnesses
 Michael J. Anthony testified briefly for the defense, admitting that Stoln had requested him to look through records at the regis trar's office, to see of his primary application was on file. the witness, an employe in the office, said he did not look because he knew the card was not there. William H. Root, former employe in the office, also testified.
 Various character witnesses were called today. They included An- thony Petrillo, local jeweler, who claimed he was with the accused when Stoln became a voter in Sep tember, io30; Frank Pope, Starbuck Sprague, local electrical supplier; Joseph Manganaro. local furniture dealer and active in various Ital- ian fraternal organizations; and Frederick W. Buckley, Republican district leader.
 John T. Derwin. Democratic reg listrar Of voters, was also called to give technical testimony on proceed rge of making voters.
 Cousin Testifies
 Cousin Michael Stoln testified he had made an application to become voter while he was staying at the home of the accused, 57 Wood street. He said he voted only in 1887 and has not voted since then. He ad- eaitted he lived on West Farm street, although the other address appeared on his application. It was the de- feuse claim that 1t is not an unusual procedure for e man to vote in a district other than his own If his address had not been corrected on
 Rnller Teslllles
 AlheRt c. Taller. Republican reg Istfar of voters, was on the stand sn faesfr and a haIf yesterday agt- 'lnoon. telling ln detail e ths proee-