The Waterbury Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1917-1946, 1946-02-08

placed by the government against
Leary property.
He said the government is SYM
pathetic" with the city, but claims
1t will not come TO any conclusion
as TO whether 1t or the city's liens
have priority unless and until" the
city obtains q Judgment against
Leary.
Assets Nay BE Divided
IF we get a judgment on the first
count" Atty. eager stated, there
win be absolutely no practical rea-
son for pursuing the case any fur
theI because there viii be nothing
to pay for any further judgment
that might be made"
He said there was IAN element Of
doubt" as to what would be done
with Leary's assets even If the city
obtains a judgment against him on
the first count. He said the federal
government has stated that it will
not consider settlement Of the lien
issue until a judgment is obtained.
1t then may decide, he quoted the
federal government as stating,
whether public policy would permit
a compromise settlement by the
municipal and federal government.
Atty. eager said a trial under the
second count which pertains to ir-
Irregularities during the first seven
years Of Leary's term of office
would be very lengthy. and costly
both TO the city and state. He point
ed out that trial by jury has been
claimed by Leary's lawyer.
Expenses Mounting
The city,s lawyer referred TO the
length of the Waterbury conspiracy
trial and the very. very heavy ex-
pense to the State" He said civil
action based on the same issues
would require much more 'partic-
ularity'' since specific dollars in
volyed would have to be cited. He
said that in the criminal action only
condensed facts were necessary and
no exact amounts Of over-expendi-
lures had TO be described.
He said a civil action covering all |
eight years would necessitate a vast |
also for accounting |
service. He said the accounting |
would be beyond the realm Of a
lawyer.
Atty. eager, arguing against trial |
now OF the count involving the first
seven years Of office, also pointed
put that the city is unable to OBJ
tain all the facts necessary because
Of the destruction by Leary Of city
records.
No Appearance Likely
During this phase Of argument he
There is not the
slightest expectation that this de-
iendant will ever appear in this
court to defend himself" Atty. Gag
sr pointed out that Leary disap-
peared on the day the State Su-
Oreme Court upheld his conviction
n the Conspiracy trial, and that
no trace OF him has ever been
'ound from that DAY."
The eity's counsel said it would
De Of assistance in the trial If
LeaFy reappeared, but there was no
expectation OF such an occurrence.
Atty. Waterhouse argued that the
wo counts should be tried together
ince one transaction was involved.
Appear Inevitable
Why doesn't he (Gager) drop the
econd count If he doesn't want TO
continue with it," Waterhouse ask
ID.
The defense attorney pointed out
hat an appeal TO the Supreme
,ourt would undoubtedly" be taxi
n by which side lost the civil &C.
ion. He said the expense to the de-
ense would be large. and he saw no
eason why II should be subjected 10
he possibility Of two separate trials
n the issues.
He charged that eager would ask
or second trial. based on the sec
nd count, II the judgment obtained
lnder the first count were smaller
han what he wanted"
First Count Issues Simple
eager. IN answer 10 the defense