The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-02-14
New Haven, Hartford
 Attorneys Included
Continues lrOm Page D

nnrrnaeS, according to PurcelL Rorrnaes told Purcell according to' the witness today. What comes out in the report IS not my busineSs-I called attention to all those things
 Purcell said today that in the con- versation, which took place on the ton floor of the city hall, in 1885, auranaes said to him, Kingsley, the mayor and Leary will go over the comments before the report Is made up."A
 Saw Kingsley In Hall
 Tho witness, who is. expected to be on, the stand for from one to six weeks, said that he had seen King lev in city hall on one occasion, had seen Meaney here on various occasions, but had never seen Mur- ray In Waterbury,
 Worried over what he considered irregular practices" in the con- truller's office, Purcell said that in 1887, lust before the election, he consulted an attorney and friend regarding the matter"
 SVuhC VI LCoy OAeCh
 He said that he had spoken many times" to Leary about the alleged ''irregularitieS," and that he had gone twice to the mayor, both times Ei l930.
 Defense counsel questioned, in lengthy arguments, the right of Purcell to testify on his personal knowledge, Judge 1nglis ruled that 'it had been established that the witness had personal knowledge adequate to testify,
 The arguments arose on the con- tinued falling requests of defense counsel that Alcorn present checks and records In connection with the testimony of Purcell Tnferences that the records mo longer exist cd" by Alcorn were ordered strick- en from the record by Judge Inglis
 Attends But One Meeting
 Defense counsel drew from Pur- cell that he had only attended one meeting of the board of finance during the terms of Leary as con- troller, and that all his knowledge of the meetings was gained through the minutes and the warrants pay able registers,
 Tho first reference to any com pany which received any payments, under the new system inaugurated in 1891, was In connection with the Abrigador Diggers, Purcell said that in 1881 the controller started issuing checks through his own of- lice, without the approval of the board of finance, and without num- bers.
 Talk with Borgnaes
 Purcell told of conversation with Borgnaes concerning @ pulp lished statement of the city's debt in 1895,
 "I said to him that the city's in dNbtedness had not been reduced in the amount and that 1t was mislead- ing in the statement" said Purcell.
 Purcell reported an instance in which $i65, ,000 had been transferred to the street department In 1887 and Of a conversation with Borgnaes concerning it.
 sI asked him why he had made that entry?" said Purcell.
 "He replied that my boss wants 1t that way" was the answer.
 Under Handicap
 Purcell wore light gray suit as he took the stand again this morn ing on call of Special Prosecutor AL corn. His face was ashen-white.
 He came into the courthouse at exactly 10 o'clock in company with John Sponzo, an aide of Mir. Alcorn. Before asking him any questions, Special Prosecutor asked the wit ness to try to keep his voice up so that the jury would be sure to hear. T realize that you are under Q handicap" he said,
 The system of issuing checks as used by the city during 1880 was de- scribed by the witness, on question of the special prosecutor. Cheeks were brought to the city clerk with vouchers after warrants payable sheets had been approved by the board of finance-except payroll checks" he said.
 What about the numbering?" asked the special prosecutor.
 Over the objections of Attorney Fred waterhouse, counsel for Dan- iel J. Leary. Purcel was allowed to answer that Tn the beginning, when cheeks were drawn with the ap- provai of the board of finance, they were numbered checks" Warehouse said that the checks should be placed as exhibits.
 "They were numbered checks is- sued out of sequence" the witness started again. Objections were sus- tained.
 Again asked to present documents as exhibits, Alcorn replied, T can't offer what is non-existent." An ob- jection was sustained.
 Vigorous objections to the entirety of Purceil's testimony was given by defense counsel who questioned his right to testify from personal knowledge. Judge Inglis questioned Purcell several times as to whether he had personal knowledge. How did you get the knowledge?" he asked.
 xAS AAGWs
 Tt Is the duty of some one in the controllers office-I knew all of the employees of the office understood" again he was cut oil by objections. T knew cheeks were issued and not approved by the board of finance" he continued.
 Purcell said that early in 1881 the controller began making out cheeks in his ofiice without the approval of the board of finance.
 "When cheeks were drawn by the controller it was outside the regular procedure as outlined by the char ter" he continued. The witness con- tined that the regular procedure was to draw cheeks in the city clerks office on a pin point machine de- signed for that purpose. Purcell said that he had personally seen such cheeks.