Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1892-12-22
wALDRoN DENIES THE CHARGES.

WALDRON DENIES THE CHARGES.
He Says the Allegations were
Brought Out of Personal Spite and |
That He Is Not Guilty-Has Several |
Times Asked to Have His Accounts |
Audited, but Always without suc- |
cess-POlitics Supposed to be at the
Bottom Of the Afalr-Ex-City Engi-
neer Hill Also Talks-The Board of
Public Works Vote to Thoroughly
Investigate the Alleged Discrepancy
in Waldronss Accounts-Claim to
Have Discovered a Shortage of $347
In Nine Items In the George Street
Sewer Account.
ing was the alleged disclosures made at the
meeting Of the board of public works yes
terday afternoon in reference to the ae-
counts of Frederick Il. Waldron, ex-clerk
of the board Of public works. The meet
ing wasi hastily called to take action on
the matter, but Notwithstanding this fact
all the members of the board were present
except Commissioner Brown, who Is at
present in Texas for the benefit of his
health. The general impression on the
street last evening seemed to be that Nj.
Waldron had not been guilty of the allsga-
tons charged to him, and that at any rate
it would be well to wait and hear what
Mr.. Waldron had to say in the premises.
Immediately after the board had con-
vened, which was nearly O'Clock, Com
missioner Todd called tie attention of
the board to the fact that there had been
discovered an apparent discrepancy in Mr..
Waldron's accounts with the city of $347,
and that this shortage was confined merely
to nine items OF his account, commencing
December l, 1883, and continuing through
the period ending November 30, 1891. It
was alleged that in 1890 a permit was is
sued to Plumber Buckley to connect with the
George street sewer, for which he paid Mr..
Wsldron $50. The stub of this particular
permit it was found only called for the
payment of fifty cents. To determine
whether this was an error or not, the per-
son who had discovered the supposed error
went to Mr.. Buckley and learned from him
that he had paid $50, and that he drew his
check for the amount, and in proof of his
assertions he produced the check which
has gone through the regular channels.
and was endorsed by Theodore A. futile.
the tax collector, and had been turned
over to him by Mr.. Waldron. The check
was made payable to the city of New Ha-
ven.
So far as the investigations had been
made up to this point the evidence was in
favor of the belief that an error had crept
into Mr. Waldron's accounts. But with
the knowledge that Mr.. Buckley had paid
the amount of $50 came an inconsistency
in the accounts of this particular book.
By counting in this check for $50, in place
| OF the sum of fifty cents which had been
recorded up against it, the stubs of the
sewer permit book showed that during the
period from November 80, 1889, to De-
cember 30, 1889, one month, Mr., Wsldron.
being compelled to mako return to the
tax collector each month, there was re-
celved Tor sewer permits the sum of sos. so
| This is the amount that should have bsen
rightly turned over from this account, but
the receipt of the tax collector for that
month only shows that he received from
that account the sum of $40.
1t had been the habit of Mr.. Waldron to
have method of double receipts. It was
bis custom to enter upon the last stub of
the permit issued for the month the
| amount of money he had received for that
month, and underneath it was left a place
for the tax collector to sign. Besides this
receipt there was also regular receipt
book. To ascertain more fully whether
the amount actually receipted for was
| turned over, both receipts were found and
| both showed the same amount, namely
80, so that that did away with any proba-
BILE mistake which was liable to occur in
| the receipting.
/ RUt fbia in
| show whether Mr. Waldron had kept back
| 1880 of the Buckley check. AS above
stated, he issued permits for the depart
| ment for gas and water connections. The
stubs of each of these departments were
looked over and it was found that by Mr..
Waldron's own figures the total amount
received for all the permits issued was $51.
| In this must be taken into consideration
the $19 from the sewer permits which Mr..
| Waldron turned over and which the stubs
as he made them out showed. The $51 was
the total amount received for the month
from all permits.
payable to the city of New Haven. The
amount to be turned over to the tax col
lector was SOL. In order to pay this sum
1t is alleged that he probably gave the
check for $50, and gave 81 in money be.
sides, thus settling his accounts with the
collector, and at the same time turning in
the check which could not be used by him
If he had so desired, because he was not
able to endorse for the city. It ia also al
legged that much more startling irregulari-
ties have been committed. It was Mr..
Waldron's custom to place the amount due
the tax collector from each permit book on
the last stub for the month. As
shown above, tho receipt for the month
in which Mr.. Buckley paid his $50
was formerly $40. On the back of the last
stub for the month in question the sum of
$40 is written in what is believed to be
Mr.. Waldron's handwriting, but over it
appear the figures $68 so, also in Mr. Wal
| dron's handwriting, thus showing that the
| figures had evidently been changed from
| what they were really. This change of
figures, in view of the regular receipt book,
| gives rise to the inference that after the
receipts had been signed by the tax col
lector for $40 they were changed to what
they really should have been, to prevent
| the alleged frauds becoming known in case
of any subsequent dealings. In other
words, 1t is made to appear that while Mr.
Tuttle only receipted for the $40, he in
| reality receipted for the right amount
which was $6S. so.
The stub books for the previous year
we're gone over, and under the date of Feb.
l, 1889, it was found that another permit
had been issued for connection with the
George street sewer, and that the stub
only called for fifty cents The sum total
for the month as shown by the stubs. the
receipts of which Mr.. Waldron turned over
TOR sewer permits was only $22 SO, while
In reality the amount which was received
for the month, 1t is alleged, should have
been $40.
On May 81, 1889, Mr.. waldron paid to
the city the sum of s74 received
from sewer permits while the stubs
show that he received the sum
Of $123 so. In this case, as in the
Buckley case, the receipt on the back of
the stub for the month shows that altera-
tons were also made here, and that over
the $74 is written the sum of $124, while,
the regular receipt book as signed BY the
tax collector shows only the amount first
named. The receipts for the month of De-
oember, 1889, are 1eceipted for as being
$3.50 while the stub book shows that the
true receipts from sewer permits were $S6,
The month Of May, 1890, shows that Mr..
Waldron only turned over from the sewer
permits the sum of $65, when in reality
the money received from this source was
$l15. In this case, as in others mentioned,
the figures of the receipt on the stub book
have been changed to their right amobnts
after they had been signed. a
The month of July, 1890: also shows a
discrepancy, the amount turned in being
$57, while the amount of money paid in
was $3.50. so.
October, 1891, shows that Mr.. Waldron
turned over to the collector the sum of
$50. so, while he should have turned over
$50.
These are all the cases which have go far
been brought to light, but the members of