The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-05-11

| treasurer, Daniel J. Leary for per- mission to transfer $127, ,887 .28 to the general fund, for payment of floating indebtedness. Items included compensation, le- gal, bonds and memorial day ex- penses.
 Brown paid particular attention to the request for payment of a compensation item of $25, ,758.94. He pointed out that during the year the city had spent $28,34480 for compensation, an overdraft of $2,- 585.86 of the original appropriation. The expenditures had been made and charged, he said, and therefore it could not have been floating in- debtednesS, as alleged in the re- quest to the board of commission CTS.
 "The surplus resource sinking fund was used contrary to the pro- visions of section 99 of the charter" 7" said Brown. But the latter portion of the answer was stricken out.
 During the early morning session, defense counsel objected strenuously to the testimony of Brown as im- material to the case and inadmis- sible. But their objections were overruled by Judge Inglis. Apparently on edge from the multiplicity of figures and account ing records benig given in the trial. Judge Inglis ordered defense coun- sel to make their objections "one at a time," Special Prosecutor Alcorn objected to what he claimed the interruptions of defense counsel while MT. Brown was making an answer.
 Johnston's Payment
 Continuing m the year 1882, Brown showed transfer of $13,00O to the account of floating indebted ness, which he alleged represented a payment to John s. Johnston, a defendant, which should not have been made under that item. A transfer of $41,292.87 from the school fund and surplus resource sinking fund to the interest on bonded indebtedness was made to balance the latter account, and the auditors accepted it, he said.
 Under this classification he re- ferred to payments of $4,500 to Judge John F. McGrath; $2.500 to William r. Thoms, and $7,000 to Johnston, all charged to the interest on city debt account.
 And passed by the auditors?" asked Alcorn.
 '"Yes" was the reply.
 Passing then to 1883, the witness said that his survey showed over expenditures of $275,971 .39, while the audit reports showed an under expenditure of $172,11l.85, differ ence of $448, ,08324.
 Transfers of $252,540 and $l95,- 542.46 from the surplus resource fund made up the difference, he said.
 Asks Authority
 The latter transfer for $195, ,542. .46 was dated December 30, 1883, al- though Brown read into the record a letter, allegedly from Daniel J. Leary to the board of sinking fund commissioners requesting authority for the transfer. The letter as dated February IS, 1884, several months after the transfer was al- legged made.
 The request, which bore no sigma ture, but was noted, treasurer" said that debts, including items to the city clerk, street department, public were welfare dept, tax revaluation. and interest on floating debt amounted to $195,542.46.
 Segregating the items, he said that a deficit in the interest of float ing debt appropriation, which orig inally was $40,000, was wiped out by the transfer of $18,000 and subsequently, s1,633.84. The account balanced perfectly, he said. He referred to another charge to interest on city debt, of $25,500 - representing payment to John s. Johnston. He added that no re- port of it was made by the auditors and that there was no analysis to show that items other than inter- est had been charged to that account.
 The year 1884, he said, was marked by an overexpenditure of appropria- ton, by $669, ,32279, although the audits only showed overexpenditure of $354,322.79, a difference of $315,000.
 A transfer from the sinking fund made up the difference, in instance also, he said.
 Five Transfers
 Segregating those items he stated that all were dated December 3l, 1884 Give transfers), and that the first for $65 900, contained no nota- tion other than 1t was at the behest of Controller Leary and Enoch Borg naes, the missing accountant de- fendant.
 A transfer of $250,0O0 was men, toned, and the voucher related to 1t, said Brown contained no notation, but there was carbon copy of a letter, dated December 3, 1884, to the board of commissioners, seeking permission for the transfer. The letter bore no signature but was marked treasurer"
 Brown said that there was noth- ing to indicate that the items cov- cred by the transfers were floating indebtedness.
 Other items covered by the trans fer in the same month, he said, were $60,000 for snow removal, although originally $50,000 had been appropri- ated.
 A transfer of $40,000 for road oil, although the original appropriation was $20,000; transfer of $755 900 for asphalt and trap rock, although the original appropriation was $45 5,000; and transfer of $75,000 for paving, the original amount set aside for which was $85, ,000.
 Objections Overruled
 Brown said that the $200, 900 total of the original appropriations com- pared with the $250,000 additional, by diversion. Objections to use of the word diversion were oyerruled.