The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-02-22
City Checks Of $59, ,478 Paid To Kingsley CO.
tcontinued from Page |,


 ted later.
 RIP. Clark Name Enters
 The name of R. P. Clark, formerly an accountant with the Kingsley Company, and now an employe oi the city of Waterbury, was brought into the proceedings this mornlnS, with references to several audits o1 books pertaining to the tax collec- tion offices.
 Federal Men Present
 Federal investigators from the income tax division of the treasury department were again present at the trial today. It is understood that they have had many more conter- ences with Judge Inglis than the two reported last week.
 Although the six years statute of limitations applies in the case of prosecutions for failure to file pro- per income tax returns, it is under stood that they can force a violator to pay up' all returns due from 1913.
 They maintain their usual silence concerning LIlelr dCJANlIiCo'
 Opening Delayed
 lev roads and slow bus connec- tions delayed Attorney Charles E. Williamson of Darien, the lone de- fendant on trial to the court and his counsel, Frank K. Wilder rom reaching the trial for the opening hour, 10 o'clock today. AS result, Judge Inglis postponed the opening until 1O:3O o'clock, at which time the two arri red at the court house.
 They proceeded immediately to the top floor of the courthouse, where the Alcorn aides hold official quarters, and when Williamson came to the second floor where court IS held, Wilder sought out Speclal Prosecutor Alcorn before entering the court room.
 When the jury had been called and admitted to their places In the jury box, Special Prosecutor Alcorn called James P. Purcell, chief &C., countant in the office of the con- troller since 1880, as the states Wit ness. It was the seventh consecutive time Purcell was on the stand.
 Indications that the evidence to- day would pertain principally to the George H. Kingsley Company, ana the three defendants who are mem bers of that firm, arose at an early moment, when the first question asked of Purcell by Alcorn concerned the George H. Kingsley Company.
 He asked Purcell who did the auditing for the City of Waterbury.
 Kingsley In Charge
 Purcell replied that prior to 1881 the Miller-F Franklin Company had taken care of the city's auditing, but that from 1881 through 1886, the George H. Kingsley Company had bsen in charge.
 The three Kingsley associates on trial for conspiracy are George H. Kingsley, William B. Murray and John W. Meaney, all of New York. Enoch E. Borgnaes, of Hollis, Long Island, is also a member of the firm and & defendant, but he is listed as a fugitive from justice. Rumors that he has been apprehended, and that he will be & witness for the state have not been supported by County Detective Edward J. Hickey, who is directing the search for him.
 Hickey at first was evasive in his answers concerning the capture of Borgnaes, but today, whe nques- toned he merely smiled.
 Purcell stated today that from 1881 through 1886 the city audits were completed by Kingsley & Co.,, but added that he didn't believe the audit for 1897 was ever com- pleted."
 Special Prosecutor Alcorn ob- tained at this point, four papers from Accountant Warren Brown, which he tourned over to Purcell and asked him to identify. "Tell me what they are, he said to the wit. ness.
 'They were duplicate city checks, he said. On another question, he answered that they were all paya- hle to the George H. Kingsley com- pany, 800 Fifth avenue, New York. '' The checks were read by Special Prosecutor Alcorn to the jury, after Judge Inglis had admitted them as evidence.
 They were as follows:
 November 15, 1884 $578.00; No- vember 90. 1884 $597.44; November 20, 1884 S2,236.37; December 31 1884 S2,354.10-$5,765.91.
 What is the significance of the pencil number on each check?' asked Alcorn. ,
 Purcell commented that 1t meant that the number and been added after the checks were returned from the bank.
 A lengthy discourse on the appro- priation in the budget for auditing for the city was carried on.
 "What was the appropria ton for the audit?" queried the the special prosecutor. Purcells testimony was to the ef- feet that he believed 1t was $3000 In 1882 and that from that time through 1887 it had been only $2500.
 Do you know what amount 1n excess of the appropriation was paid during those years?" was the next interrogatory.
 "I'm quite sure there was much more paid," was the reply.
 Not Sure
 Purcell added that he wasn't sure in what year it was, but that be de- lieved approximately $27,000 was paid in one year for auditing.
 A group of l6 checks, identified as duplicate city checks, all paid to the George H. Kingsley Go. in 1885 were next placed in evidence.
 The list was read to the jury as follows: with reference being made tn some cases to billings for work done in "tax collectors office by R. P. Clark" PurceIl said Clark at one time worked for the Kingsley Co. but now is employed by the city.
 December 31, 1884 ...... $556.6t No date given ......... 525.0( January Sl, 1885. ........ 1,499.5'