LOS ANGELES, Apr. 24 – William Norris, a Democratic candidate for attorney general, Tuesday released a transcript of sworn testimony which he said “casts the gravest suspicions” that his primary opponent, Vincent Bugliosi, lied to the Manson trial judge when he denied leaking information to newsman William Farr.

At a news conference at the Los Angeles Hilton here, Norris said he is asking the California State Bar to investigate whether Bugliosi violated a court order by leaking the material and then committed perjury by denying he had done so.

“If he did, Vincent Bugliosi should be disqualified from practicing law, much less be a candidate for attorney general,” Norris declared.

A short time later, Bugliosi issued a statement denying again that he had leaked to Farr the material to which Norris referred.

Norris had said he was basing his call for a State Bar hearing on an April 15 deposition given by Dep. Dist. Atty. Stephen R. Kay in connection with a lawsuit by two other Manson trial attorneys.

Norris said he was not accusing Bugliosi of anything himself, that he was relying on the material in the deposition as a basis for calling for a public inquiry into the matter. He also called on incumbent GOP Atty. Gen. Evelle Younger to turn over material he has collected on the matter to the Bar.

Kay, Bugliosi’s assistant in prosecuting the 1970 trial of Charles Manson and three women followers, said in the deposition that he saw Farr with Bugliosi at the time Kay had delivered to the prosecutor copies of a witness’ statement alleging that the Manson group planned multiple murders of movie stars.

Information contained in that document later appeared in a Los Angeles Herald – Examiner story written by Farr and has been the subject of a complex legal dispute since.

Farr, who subsequent to the events in question became a Times reporter, eventually was jailed for contempt of court for 46 days for refusing to disclose the source of that information. His case is still in process, and conceivably he could be jailed further.

In the deposition, Kay, said he delivered the copies, then left the room and that when he returned later the two “were still there just talking…”

Kay also told of later seeing Farr with a large manila envelope which he brought to court.

“To the best of my recollection, it had Vince’s name. Vincent Bugliosi, on it.” Kay said Farr approached him and asked him to give the envelope to Bugliosi.

Kay testified that he did not look in the envelope but that later Bugliosi threatened to have him taken off the Manson case if he ever revealed the transaction.

Bugliosi began his denial Tuesday with these words:

“First of all, I never gave Mr. Farr any transcripts during the Manson trial, and Mr. Farr has never stated either publicly or privately that I did.

“Secondly, the events described by Mr. Kay simply did not take place and his statements are untrue.”

Bugliosi said Kay’s statement is in “complete conflict” with what he told the Manson trial judge in 1971 and 1972.

Tuesday, however, Kay denied this, saying that he simply had not been asked direct questions about the events in dispute.

Of Norris, Bugliosi said, “These are the reckless and irresponsible rantings of a man so unknown and so far behind in the polls that he has to resort to this sort of thing.”

Norris declined to say Tuesday how it came to be him who was releasing the Kay transcript. He said it had been obtained for him by a staff member, but that she had not told him from whom she had obtained it.

The staff member, Sandi Mettetal, also declined to say from whom she had obtained the transcript.

Norris said that in raising the matter, “I am wearing my hat as a candidate for public office with a duty to disclose facts of public interest’

Farr said, “I have been involved in a three-year court battle and to jail for a prolonged period. I’m not going to answer any questions, direct or indirect, that would cast suspicions on any single individual in this case.”