The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-06-07
Sean,on Continues Title Wrth State Witness BrOlUn

The more important parts of to- days testimony f0llow: O. Now, then, with reference to these sheets that you have seen ,, which contain letter together with a schedule and copy of 8 resolu- ton of the emergency relief com- mission, you now say that the Kingsley Company audit report doesn't reflect exactly what the rec ords of the City of Waterbury show with reference to that transfer? A. I didn't intend that they have at any time, but they didn't. o. MT. Brown, yesterday you said that you would go to the bank to find out about that $2509 item. Did you go to the bank? A. I did.
 @. Were you able to find it? A. They haven't their records for 1884 and they couldn't trace the $2500 which was paid and charged to the city account Apparently that did not come through the Water bury Trust Company. e. I mean, it would seem so. A. That's the way it would ap- pear, yes.
 @. Because we are agreed that necessarily if it appears on the Wa terbury Trust Company exchange proof, an item that we call an out side item, if we are able to show that there was an item such as this photostatic copy of the check, it ne- cessarily must be the item. A. I think undoubtedly it was. o. So that the only conclusion that we come to, based on that rec ord, is that the schedule 454 insofar as that item is concerned would be | incorrect. Is that true? A. There is still another item un- identified d-$250O unidentified as to payee but not originally cleared through the Waterbury Trust Com- pany.
 Q. With reference to this partic- ular item, you have dealt with an item that wasn't even a city of Wa | terbury check. Is that so? l Couldn't Enter A. Well, it is insofar as the Wa terbury Trust Company is con- cerned; but insofar as the Citizens is concerned and so far as the $25o0 appearing as an unidentified item is concerned, and from my information available, I couldn't enter it on any other basis.
 @. Didn't you originally testify that this column of payees unidenti- fled represented items which were cashed or went through the Water bury Trust Company? A. Yes.
 e. So that s25OO wasn't a city | check?
 A. Yes, it was but did not clear through the Waterbury Trust Com pany.
 o. MT. Brown, this schedule that you have is made up of city checks which cleared through the Water bury Trust Company. Is that so? | A. Yes.
 i Q. $38, 8,227, ,78s-total amount ap- propriated if there were no salary cuts. What would the total amount have been that would have been ex- pended?
 A. $41, o4,344.sl.
 @. What would that over-expen. diture be that would have beer made against that appropriation? 1 A. The over-expenditure would have been $3,775,557.5l.
 o. That's the point exactly. So il would not have. been $5,8o0,0 A. That item is apparently cor rect.
 ! @. I am correct as 8 matter ot fact?
 A. Apparently. @. Now, in view of that fact. you would also have to concede that the percentage figure which you gave in connection with this summary I'll read it to you-'The total ex- penditures were reduced by approxi- mately 2S per cent through the ben eft of salary contributions of em- !ployes." Therefore, we will have te change that percent, or should say we will have to eliminate it. Thai will have to go out, won't it?
 A. Yes.
 @. So that, MT. Brown, the errol which we have as a result of youl testimony wherein you set forth that these donated salaries would have increased the over-expenditure by $2,123. .054.99 making that over-ex. penditure 8 figure of $5.898, ,61290- that too will have to go out? l A. Yes, that's right. o. MT. Brown, on page 6476 you testified that the total over-expen- allure for the years 1932-37 was $3,- TVS. .557.91 which is also on that sheet | A. That's right.
 @. You also testified that the sal. ary donations for employees was f$2,123,o54.99 which is also on that sheet.
 A. Yes.
 | e. Then you added the overex- penditure and salary donation ane
 the oyer-expenditure would have
 common council, resultant from his l,audit of the welfare department. r Likewise, Brown said, he was moi
 interested in the testimony giver
 concerning him by his former em.
 ploye. Although the report of tho
 committee was published in part
 Brown said, he paid no attention tc it.
 Even though it concerned you