The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-07-05


 of work done the first week of Jan- Kingsley defense, slated to be taken up second, will not start this week. Attorney Joseph J. Seamon, one of the defense counsel representing the Kingsley interests was absent from court today.
 Few spectators were present to- day as the court session opened. The many who were attracted dur ing the early days of the defense were kept away by the disinterest- ing testimony and the terrific heat Fans, which might alleviate to some extent the sweltering conditions, had to be turned off in the interest of audibility of testimony.
 Correct Details
 For more than 20 minutes ct the outset of the morning session, AL derman and Crawford corrected minute details of testimony given by Miss Helen R. Driscoll, Q book keeper in the welfare department, where most of Alderrnans work for the city was performed.
 The accountant, who claims that revenues of the welfare department were increased 10 fold from 1883 when he installed c new bookkeep- ing system, said that the names of two investigators who worked with him in the welfare department are Bartholomew ScAnnel and William Sheehy. Both are now employed In the tax commissioners office.
 He also claimed to correct Miss Driscoll's testimony when he said that the schedule for collections from towns and cities in the welfare department was run on monthly basis.
 Alderman said that the bills which the city of New Haven sent to the Waterbury Welfare depart ment, in 1883, dated back to 1924 and 1925. Alderman claims to have saved money for the city in effect- ing compromises of those claims.
 At the conclusion of the correct ion of the testimony given by Miss Driscoll, indicating that Crawford and Alderman had made minute study of the record over the long weekend, Crawford asked Alder man,
 No Complaint
 Did James Purcell or any one else say anything to you about ir- regularities during the eight years of the administration of Daniel J. Leary."
 "No," was the blunt answer.
 Alderman then compared two checks received from the city for services rendered, with deposit slips on the First National Bank and Trust Co.,, New Haven, in the name of himself or the name of his firm.
 One check for $350 was compared to a deposit slip dated September 2l, 1892. Another for $975, dated December 3l, 1897, was compared to 8 deposit slip bearing the notation, "Citizens and Manufacturers Na- tional Bank, Waterbury, $975."
 Crawford then asked the court for time to allow the jury to examine the exhibits, and Judge Inglis com- piled.
 After more than 10 minutes, dur ing which the jury viewed the checks and deposit slips used by Alderman as a claim that he did not make any kickbacks, the witness was referred to a schedule prepared by States Accountant Warren M. Brown, showing payments by the city of Waterbury to Alderman.
 Everything Identified
 In connection with the review of Browns schedule, Alderman used his bank ledger accounts to show deposits. At the conclusion of that trend of procedure he said, T be- lieve that covers every item I ever received from the city of Water bury"
 Have you now identified" asked Crawford, "as deposited in the First National Bank of New Haven, either in your personal or partnership account, every check ever received by you for services rendered the city of Waterbury,"
 T have," was the flat statement of the witness defendant.
 Alderman was then called upon to explain the procedure used by him and his assistants in December, 1887. when Daniel J. Leary request ed that he segregate checks paya- ble to him personally from other city checks. Alderman did so with detail, stating that the cheeks were arranged in chronological form, then compared with the warrants payable sheets. Numbers missing were recorded on work sheets, he aatA