Commonwealth v. Mannos

CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Writing for the CourtRONAN
Citation311 Mass. 94,40 N.E.2d 291
Decision Date25 February 1942
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. MANNOS et al.

311 Mass. 94
40 N.E.2d 291

COMMONWEALTH
v.
MANNOS et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Feb. 25, 1942.


Paul Mannos and one Lyons were convicted of requesting and accepting bribes on four indictments and of a conspiracy to accept bribes, and they appeal in the bribery cases and bring exceptions in the conspiracy case.

Judgments in bribery cases as against defendant Mannos affirmed in part and reversed in part, and judgments as against defendant Lyons affirmed and exceptions overruled.

[40 N.E.2d 293]

Appeal and Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; H. P. Williams, Judge.

Before FIELD, C.J., and QUA, COX, and RONAN, JJ.

R. F. Bradford, Dist. Atty., of Boston, for the Commonwealth.


F. T. Leahy and G. I. Kellaher, both of Boston, for Lyons.

H. F. Callahan, of Boston, for Mannos.

RONAN, Justice.

These defendants have been found guilty of requesting and accepting bribes from architects engaged in certain construction work for the city of Cambridge, after a trial upon four indictments charging them with soliciting and receiving bribes in the first and third from one Greco, in the second from one McLaughlin, and in the fourth from one Varney. They were also found guilty of a conspiracy to accept bribes from persons unknown. They have

[40 N.E.2d 294]

appealed in the bribery cases and have filed a bill of exceptions in the conspiracy case.

The defendant Lyons was elected mayor of the city of Cambridge in 1937 for a two-year term commencing January 1, 1938, and in 1939 he was re-elected for a further term which ended on January 1, 1942. The defendants Mannos and Lyons were close political friends. Mannos was his political manager in 1935, when Lyons made an unsuccessful attempt to be elected mayor, and again in 1937. Mannos contributed generously to Lyon's campaigns in those years and also collected considerable funds for expenses incurred in each of these campaigns. He was interested in the election of Lyons in 1939 but he was not so active as in the previous years. They frequently lunched together, and made various trips to New York. Their relations were friendly and intimate. When Lyons first took office there was genuine need of repairs to some of the municipal buildings and for the construction of new buildings. The matter had been publicly discussed and it was generally known that a building program would be undertaken if suitable financial arrangements could be made.

Greco testified that he told Lyons early in January, 1938, that he would like to be considered if the city was to do any construction work. He then saw the defendant Mannos at the latter's office in Boston, who told him that he would see what he could do. Mannos asked him if he would be willing to contribute a part of his commission to the campaign and the witness said he would. He again saw Mannos in March, who told him to see Lyons regarding the remodelling of a fire station. He saw the mayor in reference to the fire station and in accordance with the request of the major he made an investigation and filed a report with him. On April 23, 1938, the witness executed a written contract in behalf of his firm with the city to act as architect on this job. In the spring of 1938 he saw Mannos from him to time and inquired for work as he had heard that the construction of other buildings was contemplated. He then brought to the mayor a representative of the Federal government who was engaged in seeking appropriate projects for the expenditure of P. W. A. funds. At this conference the mayor enumerated eight projects which he desired to have done. In answer to a question of this representative as to who the architects were to be, the mayor named Beal for the tuberculosis hospital, Shaw for the Webster School, McLaughlin for the library and the maternity hospital, and the witness for the remaining four projects. Thereafter, Greco's firm executed three written contracts with the city for the construction of a garage, an incinerator, and in addition to the high and latin school, respectively. Lyons executed these contracts in behalf of the city. The outdoor parking project, the fourth piece of work which the mayor had mentioned, was never undertaken. The Kimball Company did the engineering work on the school, as that company generally performed such services for Greco's firm. Mannos had suggested hiring that company. Mannos told Greco that he would like to have Cleverdon, Varney & Pike have the engineering work on the incinerator and Greco hired them. Prior to securing these contracts Greco was told by Mannos that his contribution to the campaign fund would be one third. As he received payments from the city he went to Mannos's office and paid him in cash one third of the amount. He made numerous payments commencing with July 19, 1938, and ending with August, 1940. Seven of these payments were made to Lyons, two were to either Lyons or Mannos, and all the other payments were to Mannos. After he had made the first five payments to Mannos, Lyons told him in March, 1939, that ‘from now on I was to give the money to him, and not to Mannos.’ He then commenced to make the payments to Lyons. The payments to Mannos were made in Boston and those to Lyons were made in Cambridge. He paid Mannos about $13,000 and Lyons about $8,000. Payments were made by Greco as payments were received by his firm from the city.

McLaughlin testified that he saw Mannos in April, 1938, in reference to securing work. Mannos told him that the various projects had been allotted, that the witness was late in coming to see him, but that there was the possibility of a hospital building being considered. Mannos said that if he succeeded in securing the job for McLaughlin he would expect to receive one third of the amount that the witness received from the city. The witness agreed to that arrangement. In June, 1938, in answer to a telephone call he met the mayor, who inquired as to the probable cost of a maternity hospital building and arranged for him to meet with a physician

[40 N.E.2d 295]

in order to secure the details and determine whether the amount of $300,000, which the mayor had in mind, would be sufficient. After talking with this physician and the board of trustees of the hospital, he prepared preliminary plans which were submitted to the Federal public works administrator. The firm of which he was a member executed a contract with the city on August 30, 1938, to furnish architectural services on the maternity hospital job. He also prepared plans for a library building and on August 11, 1938, his firm made a written contract with the city for this work. Both contracts were signed by Lyons in behalf of the city. On the hospital work he employed The Kimball Company to do the engineering services in reference to the heating, ventilating and electrical work. Mannos told McLaughlin in April, 1939, that he was to collect and pay to him the payments that were to be paid to Mannos by those doing the engineering work, and thereafter he paid to Mannos whatever he collected from Kimball. One third of the amounts that he received from the city on both of these projects was paid by him to Mannos in Boston starting on or about November 14, 1938, and continuing until February 11, 1940, and amounted to approximately $8,500.

Kimball, a member of a firm which was engaged in mechanical engineering in laying out hearing, lighting and plumbing systems in buildings, and which did such work on the tuberculosis hospital, the high and latin school and the maternity hospital, testified that the mayor told him in February, 1938, when he asked him if his firm could have some of the work that was to be done by the city, that his firm was acceptable to him but ‘that we had to kick back one-third of our commission to do the work.’ He told Lyons that would be all right. In the summer of 1938 he received a telephone call from Beal, the architect on the tuberculosis hospital building, and did the engineering work on that building. He was hired by McLaughlin, the architect, to do similar work on the maternity hospital building. After he got the first payment on each of these jobs, the mayor telephoned to bring the money to him, which he did and paid Lyons $1,808.40 in cash; this was one third of the amount the witness had received from the architects. In the summer of 1938 Greco hired him to do the engineering work on the school job. Shortly after he had made the payment to Lyons the latter told him that thereafter he wanted the business taken care of through the architects. The jury could find that Kimball thereafter paid back in cash to the architects, Greco and McLaughlin, one third of the amounts he had received from them, and that this money from Kimball was included in the payments made by Greco to one or the other of the defendants and those made by McLaughlin to Mannos.

One Collins, a representative of Cleverdon, Varney & Pike, consulting engineers, testified that he visited Mannos in February or March, 1938, seeking work for his firm, and told Mannos that he would be willing to pay him if Mannos succeeded in obtaining the contract to furnish architectural services on the incinerator job for his firm. Later, Mannos told him that the architect on that work was Greco. The witness then endeavored to get the engineering part of the architect's work but later advised Mannos that he was unable to make any progress with Greco. Mannos said he would speak to Greco. Mannos afterwards told the witness ‘that the matter could be arranged with Mr. Greco if we would accept two per cent for our fee and two per cent for him and two per cent for Greco.’ The witness accepted the job on that basis. His firm then got the engineering work on the incinerator building. He also talked to Mannos about repair work on bridges and it was agreed that Mannos should be paid a third of the fee. Later his firm executed a contract with the city on November 14, 1938, in reference to this bridge work. Lyons...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 practice notes
  • People v. Reilly
    • United States
    • New York County Court
    • January 15, 1976
    ...for the proposition that a woman may be an aider and abettor of rape, but not a perpetrator. See, for example, Commonwealth v. Mannos, 311 Mass. 94, 40 N.E.2d 291, at 299; Cody v. State, Okl.Cr., 361 P.2d 307; cf. Annotations: 5 A.L.R. 782, 785; 74 A.L.R. 1110; 84 A.L.R.2d 1017, While our l......
  • Com. v. Stasiun
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • April 22, 1965
    ...only of a 'legislative, executive, judicial, county or municipal officer,' Commonwealth v. Mannos, 311 [349 Mass. 44] Mass. 94, 107-111, 40 N.E.2d 291, 299, held that a private citizen could be found guilty under a joint indictment charging him and a municipal officer with the offence of re......
  • Com. v. DiMarzo
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • February 28, 1974
    ...the crime if it were committed without the territorial borders of Massachusetts. With this contention we agree. In Commonwealth v. Mannos, 311 Mass. 94, 40 N.E.2d 291 (1942), it was made clear that the statute is concerned with venue and not with jurisdiction. It was stated in the Mannos ca......
  • Com. v. Beckett
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • September 14, 1977
    ...that evidence may be used against all. See Commonwealth v. Dahlstrom, 345 Mass. 130, 134, 185 N.E.2d 759 (1962); Commonwealth v. Mannos, 311 Mass. 94, 106, 40 N.E.2d 291 (1942). 5 Among the findings which the jury must make, as the judge instructed them, is that the statement was made in fu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
52 cases
  • People v. Reilly
    • United States
    • New York County Court
    • January 15, 1976
    ...for the proposition that a woman may be an aider and abettor of rape, but not a perpetrator. See, for example, Commonwealth v. Mannos, 311 Mass. 94, 40 N.E.2d 291, at 299; Cody v. State, Okl.Cr., 361 P.2d 307; cf. Annotations: 5 A.L.R. 782, 785; 74 A.L.R. 1110; 84 A.L.R.2d 1017, While our l......
  • Com. v. Stasiun
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • April 22, 1965
    ...only of a 'legislative, executive, judicial, county or municipal officer,' Commonwealth v. Mannos, 311 [349 Mass. 44] Mass. 94, 107-111, 40 N.E.2d 291, 299, held that a private citizen could be found guilty under a joint indictment charging him and a municipal officer with the offence of re......
  • Com. v. DiMarzo
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • February 28, 1974
    ...the crime if it were committed without the territorial borders of Massachusetts. With this contention we agree. In Commonwealth v. Mannos, 311 Mass. 94, 40 N.E.2d 291 (1942), it was made clear that the statute is concerned with venue and not with jurisdiction. It was stated in the Mannos ca......
  • Com. v. Beckett
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • September 14, 1977
    ...that evidence may be used against all. See Commonwealth v. Dahlstrom, 345 Mass. 130, 134, 185 N.E.2d 759 (1962); Commonwealth v. Mannos, 311 Mass. 94, 106, 40 N.E.2d 291 (1942). 5 Among the findings which the jury must make, as the judge instructed them, is that the statement was made in fu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT