The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-03-10

o. NOW, QO JOu hLlOW WllcIIlcI HI that case purchase order for meals was entered on that invoice, pre- ceding the invoice?
 A. I don't know. One wasn't is- sued before that; after the receiv- ing of the service or meals. o. You don't mean that the pur- chase order was issued after the invoice was received? A. Nothing there to indicate that there was a purchase order.
 o. Can you refresh your recol- lections from looking at this photo state that I'm showing you on the last day of December for which meals were charged? A. December 31. No Purchase Order
 Q. Was any purchase order is- sued on account of the charges in- dicated on that invoice, subsequent to December 31? A. No.
 o. Sure about that? Look at the photostat and see if you are cer- tain about that.
 A. I don't understand your cues ton.
 @. Looking at that photostat, do you now say that purchase or der wasn't issued for the meals covering that invoice, subsequent to Dec. 31, 1888?
 A. Yes. It was issued
 o. Yes. That purchase order was issued, wasn't it?
 A. It was drawn.
 o. We'll, we won't quarrel over the words issue or drawn. You didn't send that back to the Boys club, did you?
 A. I'll change that. It wa is- sued.
 Q. Do you see the word "con- fitlning" in full caps, in typewriting on that purchase order?
 A. Yes. ..
 o. Does that mean that that purchase order was issued in con- firmation of the meals charged in the invoice to which I called your attention?
 A. Yes.
 (Photostat marked for identifica- tion).
 PhotOstat Shown
 e. I'll show you photoStat of third document. That photnstat is a photostatic copy of the receiving ticket. Isn't it?
 A. Yes.
 o. That is. 1t is the statement by the department of the city to which the services are addressed for the purpose of ascertaining that the meals were actually received.
 A. That is right.
 (Photostat marked for identifica- ticn).
 @. So that it is true, is 1t not, MT. Purcell, that in cases such as I have indicated, you did have practice of making out co3firma- tory purchase orders in the pro- cedure which you agreed to indi- cate? You did have the practice?
 A. Yes.
 Q. You had tho practice in the illustration?
 A. I didn't have the practice. No,
 o. There was the practice? | A. Yes. It was the practice.
 @. When was this practice dis continued?
 A. In 1938.
 0. Are you sure about that?
 A. Quite.
 @. Will you tell me how these papers happen to bear the dates of Jaruary, 1889?
 Do Not Post
 A. The only reason I can think of is that the clerk didn't rrder- stand the instruction put. Y says on the purchase order: Do not post. | o. You mean that
 (Alcort objected to interr,lptionD
 A. In the first place, all the requisition or purchase order that was necessary was for services or for supplies.
 @. All right. Did you mean by what you said about the clerks as- sumption in this case, that the clerk assumed that the old order was still being continued?
 A. Apparently. @. That is, what you say IS tha. in January 1889, the clerk under your supervision and department assumed that this previous pro- cedure was then still being con- tinued? No doubt about 1t? A. No.
 Alcorh protesting against the in dividual reading of the checks:
 The gentleman is reading .ntt the evidence practically everything that could appear from the checks: then repeating that the check has no number. All right, but we are not getting anywhere.
 Crawford: I move that the state inent be stricken out.
 Judge Inglis: I don't understand that you mean any objection, Mir. Alcorn?
 Acorn: Yes have an objection
 Crawford: What I'm intending to do Is that we will have an intel ligent conception of the identifica- ton of the document which l stib- init. I have no way of doing that except by naming the payee, the amount, the date and number of the check. have been doing that because that is what I assumed was desired. All that I'm doing is giving a pretty well-standardi2eo procedure established by the intro duCtion of several hundred Gl ecks ihus far for the purpose of identi