The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-06-08
Brown Argues Sharply With Defense Counsel
tContinued from Page D

from Page D
 retorted Slade, as Judge Inglis be- came impatient and said, Lets pro- ceed."
 Today's session of the trial was the 83rd, and indications are that Shade will cross-examine Brown for some considerable time concerning expenses and bills
 The trial started November 29 and is now in its seventh month, in- volving g men on charges of con- spiracy to defraud the city of more than a million dollars.
 Today was Browns 14th day on the stand, his sixth under cross examination.
 Statement Is BOmbshell
 The statement of Brown that he was right in his original computa- tions of the amount which would have been expended, if it had not been for the pay slashes, struck like a bombshell at the opening of the court session.
 Immediately after the jury had been seated, Brown addressed Judge Inglis. "Your honor, yesterday I made an error in my testimony, which I would like to correct.
 T was right in my original com- putation regarding that $2,000,000 item" The $2,000,000 item referred to by Brown related to an admis- sion made by him yesterday that he had been erroneous to the ex- tent of $2,123,05499 when he com- puted that if the city employees had not taken wage slashes between 1892 and 1887 the budgetary over- expenditures would have amounted to $5,898, ,612.90.
 AS a hushed courtroom awaited Judge Inglis' action following Browns claims of accuracy, Judge Inglis replied to Brown that the correction would be made now, or if MT. Seaman agreed, on redirect examination.
 Attorney Seaman responded that he was ready to proceed and clear up the issue anytime. He suggest ed that he go ahead with his ques- tioning along that phase. AlcOrn Asks Permission
 Special Prosecutor Alcorn arose from his seat to suggest that Brown should be given permission to pro- ceed to make the correction. But Seaman insisted that he examine the witness along the lines of the questioning when Brown admitted the error yesterday.
 Starting out with a hypothetical question, Seaman drew from Brown the admission that if $5,000 were appropriated by businessman and 5,400 expended the appropriation would be over-expended by $400.
 Time and again, as the argu- ments between defense counsel and witness, with Special Prosecutor AL corn joining in at times, the witt ness was required to repeat the amount of the original appropria- tion, and amount expended and the amount which would have been ex- pended if the wage slashes had not been in effect.
 The original appropriation, Brown said, for the years 1932-1937, was 1 $38, 8,228,787 land ten cents" added Seaman.
 The actual expenditures for the years, Brown admitted were $39,- 881 ,38992, but if no salary decreases had been in effect the expenditures would have been $42, 4,344.91, a to- tai over-expenditure of $5,8e8, ,612. 90. Brown said that estimate was based on comparison of available re- sources"
 Pay Cut Anticipated
 Brown contended that the two millions represented in the pay cuts had been anticipated by the city in preparing the budget, therefore the actual budget was not $38, ,228, ,787. 10. but $2,123 ,054.99 less.
 This answer was made by Brown following question of Seaman as to whether Brown meant to tell the jury that he deducted the 38 mil- lion from 42 million and got the five million dollar over-expenditure
 When Brown protested that Sea- mans hypothetical questions left out one important factor, which, he said, would clear the situation, Sea- man asked.
 You mean. I'm not asking the questions you want?"
 You are asking questions con- trary to the fact" replied Brown,
 Seaman stressed the point that the appropriation, according to the books was 39 million, and AZ mill lion would have been spent if no salary decreases were in effect.
 But they didn't have the 38 mil- lion dollar appropriation to start with. that's the point" shouted Brown.
 Turn to your schedule" ordered Seaman, and the arguments over the question continued again.
 Total Is 3S Million
 After adding all the appropria- tions, Brown admitted that the total was 38 million but that it was based on the anticipation of the sal- ary cuts. The latter portion of the ANAAAoA Woo obAAShCll WAlC1A 0Cdllldll requested Judge Inglis to instruct the witness to answer the questions only. Attorney Benjamin Slade join ed in the protest.
 "Just answer the questions as they are put to you, Judge Inglis in- structed Brown.
 "Yes. your honor," replied Brown.
 "The trouble is that you have never prepared budget and don't know what it was," said Seaman sharply to Brown.
 Alcorn was on his feet in protest, asking that the statements go out. Judge Inglis complied.
 Starting from scratch again, in what appeared to be an endless ar- gument between two expert ac- countants, Seaman asked Brown if it were not the fact that the city determined it needed 38 million dol- 4 A e.. kn- T I