was more than an aider and abettor.  There was substantial evidence that he was jointly engaged with McCarthy and DeLorenzo in the hijacking of the truck and its contents and in the disposition of the stolen ingots.  He was present on the morning of February 19 at the initial meeting between McCarthy, DeLorenzo, White and Pando, shortly after which the hijacking took place.  Four days later, he made the arrangements for the stolen ingots to be smelted, including a false explanation for the truck's delay in arriving at the smelter.  It was Komplita, together with McCarthy and DeLorenzo, who saw to it that the ingots were in the process of being reduced to liquid form-just a step ahead of the arrival of the agents(2 Cir. 1965).


42
We reject as frivolous Komplita's contentions that the district court erred in refusing to amplify its charge on the meaning of dominion and control, and that there was insufficient evidence that he had constructive possession of the stolen ingots.

VI.

43
All appellants contend that the trial judge unduly interfered with the trial of the case and thereby deprived them of a fair trial.


44
While the attack upon the conduct of the trial judge is an omnibus one, it boils down to three principal categories: the large number of questions the court asked the witnesses; interference with defense counsel's crossexamination; and reading back of virtually the entire testimony of the witness Uphouse during the jury's deliberations, after the forelady had indicated they had heard enough.


45
In view of the nature of