Waterbury evening Democrat., 1905-11-10

l | you to the city.
 l At the outset we labored under great | disadvantage, owing to your inability to furnish us with details of the tinan- cial transactions between you and the city, your records having been partial l ly destroyed by fire. Those which re. mained were of such a nature as to be 1 of very little service to us in this ex- animation. Failing the evidence of your original records, we expected to avail ourselves of the statements 1 which we conclude you must have fur- nished to the city from time to time giving particulars of the various set dement's, and which were necessary in order that the proper entries might be made on the city books. Unfortunate ly we were unable to discover anX trace of these statements, although we made it part of our duty to call upon each of the gentlemen who had held the office of treasurer during your term as city attorney. but none of them, while admitting that such statements were rendered by you, could give us any definite information as to the ulti- mate disposition of such papers. Me were thus again deprived of a most valuable means of verifying the en- tries on the treasurer's and the comp troller's journals.
 On taking up the city books we were surprised to find that no proper method had been employed to keep track of the accounts turned over to you for collection. There ought certainly to hot-n i'm all debts and credits passing through your hands, and this would have pro- vided not only continual check upon the transactions, but also permanent record by which any such difference as that now under consideration could have been easily adjusted.
 Under the above unsatisfactory con -ditions,t we proceeded with our exam nation of such of the city records as were available in relation to this branch of the city's finances. Our work covered the period between Jan uary 1, 1891, when you entered the office as city attorney, and the present time, and this work was directed prin- cipally to the scrutiny of cash transac- tions and their application to the re- spectiye accounts affected.
 We found that on both the treasur- CTS and cOmptrollers journals the re- corded entries of your accountings to the city in respect of moneys collected by you before the annotation, "Collec- tions per l.. F. Burpee,' and on con- pairing the journals as to these entries they were found to be in agreement The applications were then verified by checking the postings to the respective accounts in the ledger and the proving of all relative footings.
 On referring to the schedule accom- panying this report it will be seen that we have gathered into tabulated form the history of all transactions with which you seem to have been con cerned during the period under review. A summary of this schedule is as. fol- lows: ~ ,.
 Charges t0 'Pers6hal Accounts for As
 sessments for Benefits, etc. Sundry persons assessed ..$131. .S32. 70 Interest on overdue assess
 ments .... ...... ..... 1,794.I9 Legal costs incurred in col
 lecting :. ... ..... 754.72 Expenses recording liens 232.44
 $134,614.65 Credits Given in Respect of Collee-
 tions, etc. Amounts collected
 by l.. r. Bur
 pee :. ... .. .$92. 2.754.37 Amounts abated. T11.52 Other amounts col
 lected. damages
 awarded, etc :. 13,O61.72 $lOe, ,5s7. .61
 
 s2s,027.04 Sundry balances
 yet to be col
 lected :. .S2S,14O.24 Less, sundry ac-
 counts in credit
 balance ;. .... 113.20 S2s.027.O4 It will be seen from the above that the actual cash accounted for by you as exhibited on the books of the city Is S92 2154-3T, the application of which will be found in detail on the accom- panying schedule. This total figure we have been unable to verify for the req. sons already stated; furthermore We do not believe verification to be possi. ble from the books and records now available.
 The column in our schedule headed Amounts claimed to have been paid to l.. F. B. for which credit has not been given shows a difference in the total of si40.J0 as between our sched- ule and the report of the committee. We have set forth this variation in de tail as follows: Michael Hawley, Simons street .&35 .O0 | Amount duplicated in that 1t ap- pears on sheets and 12 of the com l mittee's report.
 R. Kilduff. Annie VI. Burns. Mar
 garet Shearon. North Willow
 street ...- .... .... .. $500 l Amount duplicated. in that if an pears on sheets 16 and IT of the com mittee's report
 Martin Lacy. Emerald street .S1O0.JO | The assessment of S23S.3J. in respect Df which this balance appears to be | due. was laid December. 1892. Against this. Lacy ls credited with having | made payments amounting to S137.S5. ! leaving an unpaid balance of slOo.sO. lt is claimed by the committee that l they have seen receipt for payment I lf this balance bearing the date Ocfo- per i5 1891. This would indicate that l he payment of the balance of the ac. .0unt occurred fourteen months before I he assessment was laid. which is man. feStly wrong
 The efTor is explained by the fact hat a previous assessment Of xI5O was n