Norwich bulletin., 1915-05-21
WTLLIMANTIC


 following values on the articles emu
 merated: Storage battery $50, old
 dynamo $50. new dynamo and engine
 $50, booster $400, switchboard, wiring
 and fitting $10o. On cross examination
 MT. Hatch said he had worked at the
 American Thread company for ten years, had seen the Sadd equipment
 often, considered the storage battery perhaps per cent. efficient.
 MT. Sadd was then recalled. He said fair average of his stock for the
 year 1913 was s1,eoo. including cof- l tory of his store was put in evidence, showing total of $i761.18. He said the cost of the building as
 1t stands to the T. R. Sadd Co. was S2S, ,146.35, arriving at that conclusion
 from the price paid for it. $20,o0o, and
 the amounts paid for the improve
 ments in 1907 and 1911-12. Also he showed the gross income of the prop erty to be $6,239.97, and the expenses $4,T75.90, leaving net income of s1.525.33, labor $1.259.94, electrical re- pairs S16745, carting ashes $26O, taxes $420.70, insurance $81.2S. repairs $266.- so, carting rubbish $1S0, material for ! repairs, lumber, etc, $632.9 30. The value or the lot he put at 1000. of $200
 front foot, and the value of the building now $1S,000.
 Would Not Show Inventory. The cross examination of MT Sadd was taken up at the afternoon ses- sion. He stated he did not remember refusing to answer any questions at
 the meetings of the assessors and board of relief but he wouldn't show
 his 1913 inventory, as it was dishon- est, in his opinion. He produced the inventory on request, and stated it 1 showed value of S3,57182. The in-
 Ventory was made by James P. Mus
 tard and William Anthony. He never | knew Of any land in that vicinity sell | ing for over $200 a foot. | It was on the redirect examination | that the charge against MT, Mustard
 was made, MT. Sadd saying in answer to question about the 1913 inventory,
 that he had nothing to do with taking | it. James P Mustard was in a sort of partnership with him, getting s15
 a week and 8 division of the profits l He said the sum of $1,783 was taken l out of the company's profits by MT. 1 Mustard without permission or knowl-
 edge on his part, and he (Mustard> | had to swell the inventory to make up for that amount.
 He was positive that the 1913 inven- | tory was an incorrect one and he | found in two cases at least where there | had been no sales between the two | inventories of certain goods, that the | amount in the 1913 inventory was l larger than in the 1914. These two | items were calendar plates and grat-
 CTS, there being 3S4 of the former set
 down in the 1918 list, and he found | but 184 in 1914.
 Albert E. Gurley testified to the | value of the lot and block as s35, ,000 | It was bought for S16.000 about 26 years ago.
 James Smith placed the value of the l building at $25,00o and the land at $200 l a front foot.
 Hartford Witness Called, l Clarence R. Sadd of Hartford said | he had figured on what it would cost l to replace the building. and he would | do it for $20, 900. He was a builder
 and contractor and had recently put
 up similar building on Wooster street William A. Buck, George R. Tripp
 and William J. Hastings testified in turn that they thought $35, 1000 a fair valuation for the property. William L. Anthony, clerk in tke store for twelve years, said that he helped make the 1913 inventory. He called off the numbers, and Mustard l wrote them down. He did not see
 the figures. He assisted MT. Sadd in | 1914 and saw the figures, as MT. Sadd what went down. None of the plates
 or graters had been sold or removed from the store between the two in- ventories
 Testimony of Clerks. Ovila Loiselle and AdeIarde Potvin the other two clerks who were em- ployed between those times, also tes- tified they did not move or see any of those goods
 F. w. Gerrick testified he was fami- liar with the boiler. had repaired it, and thought it was of no value at present. Elmer M. Young, electrical con- tractor, said he was familiar with the electrical appliances in the building | and placed the following value on the | articles: Storage battery, $25; switch board, $50 to $40; old dynamo, $25; | new dynamo, $250 to $500; booster, $500.
 Edward Cheney, engineer in the | building, testified that he charged the battery but twice a week when it was installed, but had to charge it every day now.
 MT. Sadd retook the stand to say that although there were more lights
 run by the plant now than previous ly, the voltage required was less, as formerly arc lights were used in the Woolworth store, requiring more pow CT.
 The plaintiff then rested. Court was adjourned until this morning at 1915 for the short calendar session. The
 case will be continued at Il o'clock. HOP RIVER PLANT