The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-05-23
Mayors Contract With Leuy
 Illegal, Contends Alcorn

and got the sanction for entering into the arrangements. But I sub init the two acts of the charter which I ask the witness to read will show that there was no auth ority for any such arrangements and if any such arrangements were entered into, the provisions of the charter were not compiled with by other agencies of the city which should have had part in any such arrangement.
 Judge: It isn't question of what his purpose is; it is a question of what he is asking. He is asking for testimony of facts and so far as he isn't asking for anything drawn or any legal conclusions from those facts, I think I will have to over rule the objection.
 (Mr. Brown then read the two acts of the charter)
 @. Have you examined the rec ords of the city to determine wheth- CT or not the board of finance took any action whatever in regard to that contract made pursuant to the recommendation or the request of Mayor Hayes?
 Checked Minutes A. I have examined the minutes of the board of finance.
 @. And whether or not you find the board of finance took any action whatever in regard to that matter?
 A. They did not at any time. Q. If you have examined the rec ordS to determine whether the board of aldermen took any action with respect to that vote on the request of the mayor?
 A. I have examined it.
 Q. And whether or not any such action was taken?
 A. No, sir. o. I direct your attention to the payments of Kingsley and Go. re- fer you now to the year 1885. (Schedules for that year offered and marked as an eXhibit.)
 o. How many separate payments were there to Kingsley & Co. during 1885?
 A. 26.
 o. Whether or not those pay ments were made before entry upon the books of the city?
 A. For at least g of the pay ments checked had been previously paid by the city before any entry was made on the city books.
 e. What was the appropriation for auditing, MT. Brown, during that year 1885?
 A. $2,500.
 c. What was the over- -expendi- ture?
 No Comment
 Q. Whether or not there was any comment made for that in the re- port of Kingsley and Company? A. No, sir.
 0. In 1881 and 1892 whether or not the same sum of $2,500 was ap- propriated for auditing services? | A. Yes, sir. Q. And what did that cover dur ing those two years? A. It covered the auditing by certified public accountants the same as the appropriation covered in 1885. o. Whether or not the written comments in the various reports from 1881 through 1887 were practically the same?
 A. They were.
 Q. What were the total payments for the year, 1886?
 A. $23, ,462.07.
 o. Whether or not the appropria- tion of $2,500 was the same dur ing that year?
 A. It was.
 @. What was the total amount charged for auditing city accounts?
 A. Charged to that particular &C., count was $17,687.07. @. Whether or not there was 8 charge for the tax collectors de- partment?
 A. The payments made to George H. Kingsley & CO were in part charged to the tax collectors de- partment.
 0. How much was that? A. $5775. No Appropriation e. Whether or not there was an appropriation for that? A. There was none. Q. Any comment made in re- ports of the auditors? A. No. o. Whether or not you found on examination of the books any of these 28 payments were physically paid by the bank before entry on the books? A. I did. 0. How many of them? A. At least 25 were paid physical ly by the bank before entry made on the books. o. Any comment in regard to that in the report of the auditors? A. No. @. How much was charged dur ing the year 1887 for auditing city accounts by certified public &C., countants? A. $20,681.79. Further on: @. Have you found payments made to Daniel J. Leary in 1930-