Waterbury evening Democrat., 1905-11-10
JUDGE BURPEE IS NOT INDEBTED TO CITY.
So Says the Expert--But the We'll Known Judge Says He Does Owe the Ciy--Report of Expert Presented
 at Last Nights Meeting.

other instances, where the amount ap- lparently not accounted for Is less than the outstanding balance it would prob
 ably be explained that the payment
 was lon account"
 We would here refer to an impor., | tant feature in the situation which de.
 serves consideration. / In charging as-
 easements on the city ledgers, the prac- tice has been to open with each indi- vidual separate account in respect of every assessment laid against his property This method lays bare the possibility of crediting a payment to the wrong account, and might perhaps explain, at least in some cases, why certain receipts inspected by the com mittee are not represented in the col-
 lections credited on the city books
 The instance of Martin Lacy, as given on page 3 of this report, would seem
 to show that such mistakes might
 easily have been made.
 I Of the papers and memoranda re-
 maining in your hands after the fire, l were a few returned bank cheeks. l They have been compared with the city books and, with the exception of | tuC uuuClHOtCus NCIC lOuilu tO iuNO
 been properly accounted for: Exceptions--Checks on the ManH- facturers' National bank:
 February 25, 1896 No 424, to
 l, Charles j. Griggs, treasurer $1,350.S7 February 26, 1896, No 425, to
 Charles J. Griggs. treasurer 99.42 1 April 9, 1896, No 431, to Chas J. Griggs, collector ....... 5000 | These checks having been drawn in
 favor of MT Griggs, the presumption is
 that they would cover collections re- | ported by him from time to time. We | have endeavored to trace the con- stituent amounts which merge in these checks, but have been unable to do so
 as regards the one for $1. .350.S7. As to
 checks Nos 425 and 43f. the inference is that in all probability they cover l the following:s b1
 Journal c, page Al, February, 1896: | F. J. and Kate Strain, Fairview and Hillside avenue .... .S99.42 Journal c, page 466, April, 1896: | Mary COsgroye, Laurel street. 5000 Moses Lallier, Charles street. ... 1000 Charles Rasicot, Charles street 1000 S30.00 The other records and memoranda which we obtained from your office were stubs of receipt books for sewer assessments, and typewriter lists which appeared to set forth the amounts collected by you from such assessments. These lists were evl- dently made up from the stub books, with which he have compared them, and, subject to minor differences no doubt due to clerical error, the lists were substantially correct. It will be seen, therefore. that any evidence obtalnable from the records and memoranda in your possession has not been of material assistance to us, except as to the checks given by Mir Griggs referred to above.
 At your request we have also ex- amined your bank Accounts, both the special account in which we are ill- fofmed ybu ,deposted the eity's money together with that of other clients, and your personal account. We were un- able to discover anything of much im- portance concerning the matters under consideration. It does appear, how ever. that both accounts were frequent ly drawn on and the balances were not permitted to remain at any large fig ure: and that when you made your final payment to the city in the spring of 1896 there did not appear in either account balance of more than $50.
 As already mentioned, we have been unable to obtain from the city officials any statements or memoranda which would serve as vouchers showing that all collections turned over by you had been properly applied to their cor responding accounts. This is very much to be regretted. and we are cer- tainly of the opinion that these mem- oranda should have been carefully pre- served for evidence in matters of such importance as that now under consld- eration.
 The indexing of the ledger accounts relating to these assessments was somewhat faulty and incomplete, espe- cialIy In the case of the older accounts. and lowingisto this fact considerable s time and labor was involved in tracing the several entries.
 In conclusion, we have to report that. for the reasons above stated, the condition of these accounts is such that they do not furnish sufficient evl- dence to show that any assessments collected by you have not been paid to the city. and consequently we have not been able to ascertain that any amount of such payments has not been in some way accounted for by you.
 We are pleased to testify to the uni form courtesy extended to us by Comptroller Goodrich and his assist ant. and to acknowledge the facilities afforded ms fin the prosecution of Our work.
 Respectfully submitted.
 FREDERICK C. MAXWELL.