Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1946-02-12
b THE EVENING STAR, Washington D. C.
TUESDAY
Ruling on New Trials
For CurIey, Others
Due in Few Days

DlStrlcC court Justice James M
Proctor plans to rule in few days
on pleas for new trials by Repre-
sentative Curley, Democrat, of Mas
sachusetts, and two co-defendants
who were convicted recently OF us
ing the mails to defraud and con-
spiracy.
The jurist announced his plans
after he took under advisement
late yesterday the arguments of
counsel for Representative Curley,
once president Of Engineers Group,
Inc; Donald Wakefield Smith, It's
treasurer. and James G. Fuller, its
executive vice president.
William E. Leahy, counsel for Mr..
Curley, charged that the Jury ran
wild" with verdict that could not
be based on the testimony in the
trial.
THE jurors were misled," he de-
lclared. He insisted the government
In Its case was unable to trace one
cent to Curley."
Claims Prejudice.
Pointing to the several sub
stantive counts" charging specific
allegations of fraud, and the gen.
eral count of conspiracy, Mr.. Leahy
said the Jury was unable to diff
ferentiate, to evaluate the testi-
mony as it came in over six weeks. :"
He emphasized the jury had
found Mr.. Curley not guilty on war
contract counts, and that his client
had been seriously prejudiced" by
the Government continual harp
ing on alleged fraud in war con-
tracts. He related how the pre-
siding judge had clipped" several
counts in the indictment out of the
case and took two defendants" out
of the case by directed verdict of
acquittal.
Insisting that there was no EVIL
dence the convicted defendants ZEN
tered into such a conspiracy as
alleged in the 18th count" of which
they were all found guilty by the
jury, Mr.. Leahy declared: you don't
find Curley writing single letter
or receiving letter. You don't
find him receiving a prospectus"
William A. Gallagher, counsel for
Mr.. Smith, contended there was no
record in the case to show that the
jury verdict was unanimous, par
ticularly in regard to his client.
He charged there had been CON
fusion" when the jury reported, and
that certain Jurors during a poll,
disagreed with the verdict as re-
ported by the foreman.
Cites mistake"
T. Emmett Mckenzie, counsel for
Fuller. reading from the court re-
porter's official transcript, COM
planned that one of the jurors had
said in open court they" told him
he had made mistake" Mr.. Nc
Kenzie commended his questioning at
the time never succeeded In dis
closing what that meant. Referring
to his motion on file In the court
for new trial, be told Justice
Proctor, no oral argument was
needed, as the argument for his
client was "self-evident."
For the government, William A.
Paisley, assistant to the attorney
general, contended the evidence was
sufficient to justify the verdicts
reached by the jurors, and that
the record in the case was sufficient
ly clear to let the verdict stand.
Should Justice Proctor grant a.
new trial, it probably would be sew
eral weeks before the case is put
on the court calendar and a new
jury selected. If the new trial is
denied, the court can impose SEN
tence Immediately and grant bail
or hold the three men. Mr.. Curley
has announced his intention of ap-
pealing to the Court of Appeals, and
the Supreme Court If necessary.