The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-09-02

1 tember as there would be no char l ter provision by which direct pay ment could be made before that time. Yet the bill was incurred sev- eral months ago.
 In a letter which ememplified Controller Rowland's legal training he placed onus for the action upon Mayor Frank Hayes and commented on the unavailability of Corpora ton Counsel Charles S. O'Connor to appear in his behalf. The latter tried the case for Mayor Hayes.
 On motion of Commissioner John H. Goss, because of the legal in- depreciation involved concerning the city's liability" the application for the $500 was referred to the corporation counsel.
 MT. Rowland's letter follows:
 Sept. l, 1888. Honorable Board of Finance
 Gentlemen
 There is, herewith, presented to your honorable board bill for legal services amounting to $1,250 in dis bursements total $1,320.25.
 To determine my rights, as city controller, as a public official un- der the charter, it was made neces- sary for me to incur this expense in my name. The office of the cor poration counsel acted for Mayor Hayes in this litigation, and conse- quently the services of the corpora tion counsel were. therefore. not available to the city controller as another elected official in this mat ter at any time and there was, therefore, the necessity for outside counsel This was in the matter of the determination of the provisions and rights, with respect to the city controller. under the charter of the city of Waterbury referring to the most important and primary ques- tion and the establishment by court of the right to employ and discharge employees in the office of the controller.
 A decision was granted by the superior court of the state of Con- necticut in favor of the controller Subsequently this decision was ap- pealed by the mayor to the su- perior court of errors. Then the superior court of errors upheld the decision, in favor of the con- troller, and interpreted at very considerable length the charter of the city. During the appeal, of course, it was again necessary that expense be continued, in my name in this litigation.
 There was very considerable amount of legal work necessarily in- yolved in the establishment of this primary question and interpretation of the charter of the City of Wa terbury. Since this legal expense refers to the rights of public of- ficial under the charter, and as it was necessary to have an interpre- tation and determination of these rights by law, and as the supreme court of errors of the State of Con- necticut has upheld the contention of the controller regarding these rights under the charter and as in general the decision has more or less of a direct bearing with ref erence to rights of public officials under the charter of the city, dc not feel that this matter was a personal matter and I do not feel that should be required to assume this expense personally.
 As further substantiation of this contention am advised that there Is clear legal case wherein a pub lie official may be reimbursed fol this type of expense. This case is cited in Connecticut Reports No 50. page 234, Hotchkiss vs Plunkett Therefore, this is respectfully sub- mitted to your honorable board fol proper consideration.
 | Yours respectfully, SHERWOOD l.. ROWLAND,
 Controller.