The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-07-05

 uary, 1898. to which you have re- ferred?
 A. It Is.
 c. How was the remaining amount of work to be covered by this payment determined at the time you received this check?
 A. It was estimated based upon an investigate we made in the town clerks office with respect to the amount of work still to be done and in connection with the prepara- ton of work to be done in the de- pertinent of public welfare.
 (Jury examines vouchers.)
 c. Now, in the period that you have been checking these payments against the ledger cards themselves, let me ask you, whether that is the same period that MT. Petron esti- fled that the bank had retained no deposit slips for?
 A. That is true. Identifies Deposits c. Whether by Identification on the ledger sheets for the period In which MT. Petron said that the bank had no longer retained the de- posit slips, and by Identification with the deposit slips which you have testified about, which have been shown to the jury, I ask you whe- ther you have now identified as having been deposited in the bank account of either of your partner ship account or your personal ac- count in the First National Bank and Trust Company of New Haven every payment ever received by you for services rendered to the City of Waterbury?
 A. I have.
 Q. In verifying the checks that you were working on and for which MT. Leary paid you separately, will you explain to the jury what the procedure was?
 A. We received a batch of checks, possibly 500. We went through the cheeks to see whether or not the checks were all there.
 Q. Did you determine whether they were in chronological order? A. Originally, they were ar- ranged chronologically. They were for the most part chronologically arranged when we received the checks.
 c. Suppose they were out of chronological order? A. We arranged them chronolog- ically. Then we divided the checks into two or three patches. Each one of us took hundred or so of the checks and placed on g sheet of analysis paper or ordinary paper, all of these check numbers that were not in @ chronological arrangement. Those were missing at the time. c. You marked them as missing in your working papers2 A. We marked them as missing.
 c. And in your record there are also mentioned in your work sheets, the amounts of the checks-I mean, the checks that were out of chrono- logical order and you put those cheeks in chronologically?
 A. No, we arranged them all as we got them.
 c. What did you do then2
 In Order
 A. One vas putting checks in Q chronological order and one was working on the warrants payable. We had the book open and one would call off from the check the number of the checks, the payee of the check, the amount of the check; Alderman said, he had never seen the warrants payable register.
 When he worked in the City Hall in 1887, on Sunday, Christmas, and one evening, there was mo attempt at secrecy or concealment of any character" Alderman said.
 "Was MT. Purcell aware of what you were doing2" asked Crawford.
 "Yes," said Alderman.
 Did you have occasion to confer with MT. Purcell during your work of 1937?" continued Crawford.
 "Yes," was the reply.
 In many instances, Alderman said, the handwriting of Purcell was con- tained in his worsheets. The work sheets were passed to the jury for inspection.
 "When MT. PurceI first saw you in the city hall in December, 1887. did he ask you what you were do- ing?" asked Crawford. Working For MT. Leary AIAapVnoyS ayroDaRad tsS thA affirmative, Crawford asked for the details of the conversation.
 T told him l was doing some work for MT. Leary," responded Alder man. He continued that the same question had been asked of him by former County Detective Edward J. Hickey, and that he had responded in the same manner. Alderman said he hadn't known Hickey before the Investigation.
 "You were not in the habit of re- ferring to MT. Leary as Dan?'" asked Crawford.
 "No," was the emphatic reply.
 That testimony was apparently in answer to testimony of James P. Purcell, wh- was on the stand l9 days in the earlier phases of the trial, as a state witness.
 Purcell, who has been present in the the courtroom since the start of the Alderman testimony last week, is expected to be a rebuttal witness for the state. During his direct testimony he said that when he first met Alder man In 1887 and asked him what he was doing. Alderman had replied. I'm doing a little job for Dan."
 SpecAl Prosecutor Alcorn has used that quotation during argu- ments in the absence of the jury, over the admissibility of evidence In the states case.
 Crawford asked the states &C., countant, Warren M. Brown for checks issued by the city of Water bury in December. 1887, which he contended have been testified as be- ing all available.
 | nrnw,y. le tlxn n,satndiava nf Awhifita