The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-06-06
Judge Inglis Issues
 Stern Reprimands
tcontinued from Page D

 on available information.
 Concerning four cheeks issued by the city for a total of $1,265.05 which could not be identified, Sea- man asked Brown If he did not know that they had been deposited to the widows and children's pen- sion fund to the extent of $65940.
 At Cross Purposes
 Brown replied that they had not been deposited and Seaman asked, "If showed you that they were de- posited you would be in error, would you not"
 Brown replied that he would like to see 1t first, but Seaman replied that 1t would come at the proper time. AS Seaman moved to another subject, Brown said I'd like to clear up that point, You have suggested that I might be in error" Seaman ignored the complaint.
 Similar objections were made by Brown when Seaman asked him If he might not have been in error concerning checks which he had listed as unidentified, and which Seaman claimed had been deposited to the Waterbury Mason Supply and Coal Company.
 Seven checks for total of $2,- Oi8.50 were issued by the city Octo- Der 20, 1886, of which amount $983.75 had been identified, Brown said, leaving $1,03483 unidentified.
 'If I show that all seven checks were deposited in the Waterbury Mason Supply & Coal Go. account would your schedule be, in error?" asked Seamon.
 Brown Again Denies
 "They were not deposited" replied Brown. Answer the question" ordered Seaman.
 GAS far as the amount identified Is concerned-yes," was the reply Of Brown.
 Then Seaman started to refer Brown to an item for November D, 1884, leaving the Waterbury Mason Supply & Coal Co. hanging fire. But you left an allegation and l want it cleared up" protested Brown.
 .Is it fair to leave it open?" he COuGl1lueu III plOICoV.
 Then Came Rebuke
 I'm asking the questions" said Seaman, as Attorney Slade arose to request the court to admonish the witness for his arguments. At that time Judge Inglis admonlshed both witness and counsel. Slade said that the evidence to support the questions of Seaman would be adduced, and that Sea- man was acting in good faith in conducting that type of cross-ex- animation. But it was improper cross-ex- animation to ask questions without rxesenting the evidence" ruled Judge 1nglis.
 Arguments Dismissed
 Continuing the argument, Slade replied that 1t doesn't justify the ~ assumption that counsel was acting in bad faith, in asking the ques- tions" Judge Inglis dismissed the arguments, stating that he did not consider Seaman was acting in bad faith.
 When Special Prosecutor Hugh M. Alcorn entered a comment as Sea man was examining Brown, Attor- ney Patrick Healey arose in wrath to protest.
 Seaman was questioning Brown concerning seven checks issued Oc- tober 20, 1886, as he continued his attempt to refute the claims that more than $1,000,000 had been ex- pended and was untraceable.
 esWere the checks over $200?" in terrupted Alcorn.
 Attorney Healey Hits Alcorn
 Attorney Healey was on his feet protesting that for the past six months" they have been engaged in a rough and tumble" pointing to wise cracks from the witness stand" and remarks from the floor.
 "If that's the kind of a scrap we're in," he continued, T want to have it on the record"
 The remark of Alcorn was strick- en from the record.
 As the attack on the accuracy of Browns schedule started, Seaman asked him questions concerning five checks for a total of $2,023.0 .09, issued April 20, 1886 He pointed out that l6 other checks, added to the five checks, made total of $2,28768, which compared exactly with three notes of the Office Supply Con- pany for a total of $2,287.68, which were cancelled.
 Seaman Wanted to Know
 Seaman demanded to know if rec ords of the Waterbury Trust Com pany. in the possession of Brown X did not show that the 21 checks were used to pay of the Office Sup ply Co. notes at the Waterbury Trust Go.
 sCfilcials of the Office Supply O., now in bankruptcy, were queried at the time of the grand jury inves- tigation.
 Brown contended that there was nothing on the sheets to show the comparison, and contended that Seaman would not have made the comparison if Carl D. Olsen, former vice-preSident and treasurer of the Waterbury Trust Company had not pointed it out.
 Browns Contention
 If the items could have been Identified from the sheets, we would have done it." contended Brown.
 @Will you admit that schedule 454 must be revised?" asked Seaman.
 ''No.' replied Brown. Pointing out the comparisons of the amounts of the 21 checks and the loans, Seaman asked. Isn't that enough to show you that the payee 0f the 21 checks was the once supply Co.?s
 ~It Is now" he answered, as he admitted a revision should be made.
 Responsible Fer Errors
 Brown said that if there were efrcrs made in the computation they were his responsibility. He said