The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-11-19

self that he successfully covered his
 tracks It has a strange sound in- tended to be exculpatory by virtue
 of a general denial plea, more especial
 " so when the Farmer correspondent
 has never accused any town official
 ed facts plainly show looseness of
 methods and improprieties in the way
 of omission and commission Whether
 these have passed the line which dis
 tinguishes mere ineffciency in it's
 varying phases from the wflful and
 gainful misconduct which becomes
 criminality. your Bedding correspon-
 dent has not undertaken to say. It
 was to determine this vital point that an official investigation was proposed.
 ''The Farmer correspondent" says "D''
 In effect, cannot or at least has not eiucidated the mystery of town ac- counts" This the correspondent ad-
 mits. He is quite content to leave there be any mystery in town ac- counts It is this very element, baf- fling to the ordinary citizen which pro- vokes suSpicions that the facts may for the probing process by profession als. One of the subjects which would seem to invite investigation is that pertaining to the amount of costs which. according to the published rec ord. was returned to the town in the cases of Hoffman and Williams, the Mark Twain burglars.
 These offenders were bound over as the result of a preliminary hearing be- fore a local justice. The costs incur red from this proceeding were first paid by the town and supposed to be subseQently returned to the town by the State upon the final adjudication, of thswcase in the Superior Court In such Cases the trial justice sometimes sends the bill of costs to the select men for their approval although this IS not strictly necessary; at other times requisition for payment is made record of the Hoffman and Williams costs in the last annual town report there appears under the head dis bursements' (referring to the costs first paid by the town) an entry of s33-63 for the case of Williams, and one of SASS for the case of Hoffman. Under the head. receipts" there ap- pear entries of s3f.55 and s37.76, re- spectively, for the same cases there being the sums returned by the state. turn of s72-s1- The slight balance against the town in this showing is understood to represent charges for two or three witnesses whose names appeared in the original subpoenas but whose attendance was not secured This discrepancy may therefore be dis missed as an immaterial consideration. The mystery" in the affair comes from an entry fin another part of the annual report among the orders re- corded as having been approved by the selectmen- This entry reads:
 w. H. Ill treasurer. State vs. Hoff- man and Williams. $34.7e. ["
 On the face of the returns this re- presents an expenditure entirely apart from the two given in the treasurer's report If 1t was a proper claim why was it not presented in the Superior Court? With the other two disburse- ment items 1t represents a total out lay in the two cases of s114.5o against a record orset of s72.31. a difference Of s42-1s which the town would seem to be ''out." That any one wrongfuI- ly pocketed this balance or any part of it does not necessarily follow. The discrepancy may be due to duplicate entries and therefore faulty bookkeep- ing In respect to figures however the selectmen order entry does not CO., ipcide with any of the treasurer's en- tries and hence deepening of the mystery.