The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-03-16

On the request of MT. Leary, Pur- cell said, he had often made up statements for presenta- ton to banks and notehouses, to show the financial status of the city. He said he obtained the figures for the reports from the books of the city. Usually, he said, the reports were turned over to MT. Kelly.
 Although he was in charge of three employees in the third floor office of the controller he had never been called boss" he said. He ad- mitted that Leary, who had seven employees in the first floor office, was often referred to as "the boss"
 BOrgnaes Mentioned
 Enoch E. Borgnaes, the missing accountant-defendant, was men, toned again in the trial today by Slade. Purcell said that he did not recall seeing the complete audit for 1929, which was supposed to have been made by Miller-F Franklin. The audit was not in evidence.
 Purcell said that in 1881 he met representatives of Miller Franklin company, about six or eight times, and continued that they were work ing in the city hall about six or eight weeks. He said he obtained a copy of the 1891 audit.
 About 1892 or 1883, Purcell con- tinued, the Miller Franklin com- pany changed its name to Kingsley company. Purcell said that the same men represented the two firms.
 Purcell said that he believed he met, in 1892, members of the Kings ley Company, by name of Borgnaes, Troy, Wagner, Atkins and Meaney.
 The witness said he was i'll from time to time in 1882, when Slade asked him if he had been away from the office for any time. with the exception of two occasions I was i'll, I wasn't away an average of one day month," he said, referring to the years 1932-1937.
 Shade reminded him of direct testimony he had given concerning the transfer of $165,000 from one item to another in December, 1887. It was recalled to the witness that he had testified about the transfer in connection with a meeting with Borgnaes in the City Hall office of Leary.
 You testified about a transfer of $165, 900 ." said Slade.
 Asks for Record
 Hotly, Purcell retorted, T did not @. and I think the record shows it." Purcell admitted that his mem ory failed him concerning the speci- fic item, but said if he could see more records he might be more able to remember.
 Slade read to him a letter, dated, December, 1897, from Thomas J. Fleming, superintendent of streets, to Daniel J. Leary, controller.
 Letter Explains
 The letter, contained in an ap- ledger, stated that the appropriation for the street depart ment had been expended by $225,- 900, mainly because of the expendi- lures of $165, 900 in connection with the paving of South Main, Baldwin, Congress avenue, Willow and Homer streets.
 Fleming, in his letter, complained that 1t was his understanding that the $165,000 was to have been charged to a street improvement bond fund. He contended that the street department should not be in- cumbered for the amount.
 Purcell said that Borgnaes had worked at preparing tax lists and other lists. He also referred to the bookkeeping machine used in the preparation of the warrants payable sheets, as the same machine used throughout the Leary regime.
 Rejects Opinion
 "In my opinion :" started Purcell at one point in that trend of examination.
 Slade interrupted, T don't care for your opinion-tell us what you know"
 In further reference to the trans fer made by Borgnaes, Slade re- called Purcell's previous testimony concerning Borgnaes' that "The boss wants 1t that way" Purcell ad- mitted that he probably had seen the Fleming letter before the trans fer was made. Slade set out that the letter was dated prior to the transfer.
 Purcell denied that when he com- plained to Leary that his assistants were incompetent, he made any reference to the operator of the bookkeeping machine. He said that this operation was quite satisfactory and that it hadn't taken the girl long to learn the operation of the machine after it was first purchased.
 Several items on a warrants pay able sheet, payable to single firm, under a single date, were read by Slade, and identified by Purcell. You haven't heard any question of those claims, have you"? questioned Slade.
 During direct examination, there was considerable testimony concern ing numerous items of payments to single contractors, all entered on the warrants under a single date.
 A lengthy controversy was con- ducted on the procedure of chang ing the date of the machine, which was used to prepare the warrants payable sheets.
 CONGRESS REFERS