The Waterbury Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1917-1946, 1944-04-01

In q brief memorandum on a
second motion in which the city
asked for a disclosure of Leary'S
defense, Judge McEvoy states that
papers filed by Attorney Frederick
Waterhouse of Hartford, lawyer for
the defendant, "are in fair compli-
ance with the rule, and added that
no action of the court was required
on that motion.
The two main arguments of the
city against filing of detailed charges
against Leary, as summarized by the
juriSt, were: that there will be no
real contest in the case because of
the absence of Leary, and that filing
Of a more specific statement would
lead to unnecessary expenses.
The judge states, 1.-THE theory of
the plaintiffs seems to be that, be-
cause it is assumed by the plaintiff
that the defendant will not be pres
ent at the time of the trial that, for
that reason, there will and perhaps
con be no defense"
This theory" he continues,
would seem to be inconsistent with
the law and the practice. The leg
iSlature, in its wisdom, has made it
incumbent upon the courts to con-
tinue any case in which there is an
Dissent or resident defendant.
In addition to this, there are several
instructive theories with reference
to the contents of a complaint. One
is to fairly appraise the defendant
of the claims which the defendant
will have to meet in order that the
defendant may reasonably prepare
his case accordingly. Another phase
OF the matter is to so arrange the
pleadings that a bosis will be laid,
in the record for the determination
Of the facts and the entry of judg-
ment In accordance with the law"
The jurist adds further: eff a
motion were filed for judgment on
the pleadings it would still be neces-
sary that there be a basis in the
pleadings, by way of the allegations
or specific facts or, as they are
called, subordinate facts, which
would lead to and legally justify
q conclusion"
Judge McEvoy then states, "Judg-
ment may not be entered upon spec
ulation or SurmiSe.
In stating that the city will have
to file more specific statement, as
ruled by the court July IA, 1888,
Judge McEvoy states the counsel
ought to agree upon the essential
limitation of time for compliance
with the order. He adds that if they
are unable to agree then the matter
Of limitation Of time ought to be
presened to the court for deci-
sion.
The civil action was instituted Feb.
81, 1888 by the Citizens Good Gov
eminent association and later the
city entered the case as a party
plaintiff Attorney George H. Cohen
Of Hartford was hired by the organ
iZation and later was secured as
special counsel for the city in the
litigation.
On March II when the two mo-
tons were argued Attorney Water
house indicated that the specific de-
tense of Leary will be filed after the
city compiled with the order to
make more specific statement. He
said allegations Of the city would be
denied and reference would be made
to the settlement made b. the sur
ETY. company on the bond filed when
Leary assumed duties as city con-
troller.
In the disclosure of defense writ,
Leary's lawyer stated that payment
has already been made to the City
Of Waterbury on its claims against
Leary by virtue Of recovery on the
bond. About two years ago the city
received $4,000 from the Maryland
Casualty Co., on the controllers
bond.