The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-05-05
Missing Defendant Is
 Still Among Mysteries
tconttnued from Page D

fense objections and ordered the remark stricken from the records.
 Alcorn continued on that trend of query, however and learned that Troy sometime later talked with a member of the firm about Borg naeS." The conversation, he said, took place at the New York office of the accounting firm, 500 Fifth avenue. Troy was not certain ex- actly who it was he spoke to, but he believed it was MT. Meaney.
 What did he say" asked Alcorn.
 q can't recall" was the reply.
 "Well, give us the substance" or dered the special prosecutor.
 Relating the conversation, Troy started, He said Borgnaes was i'll and had been some time. The doc- tor advised him to take complete rest. He (BorgnaeS) said he had been ill SO much and away so long he wanted to take leave of absence with half pay"
 Troy said that he believed Borg naes "did take the leave" but he didn't "know when the leave be- gan."
 In an effort to obtain a specific date for the leave of absence, AL corn asked him when the leave started with relation to his talk with Meaney. The witness replied that it took place some time after the talk, but before he made his grand jury appearance of April Is or 19.
 Reported Missing
 BorgnaeS was first reported mis- sing when sought as a grand jury witness about April IS.
 Troy said he has not heard from Borgnaes since that time, that he doesn't know where he is, and that he has never seen him at the office of the company since.
 When he went to Borgnaes' home in March, the witness said, it was to visit the accountant, who was reported to be i'll. It is understood that Borgnaes suffered from heart condition.
 It was at that time that Troy related that Borgnaes' wife and two boys, who were at home in March, have since gone to Europe.
 T don't know when they left" he stated.
 When Borgnaes first disappeared, he was reported to have fled to Denmark or Norway. But no evi- dence of where he departed for has ever been related by the states rep resentatives. Rumors that Borgnaes might be in a place known to the state, who would summon him as a witness at an opportune time, have also been unfounded.
 Saw Alderman.
 The witness also testified that he saw Simon J. Alderman, another defendant, in the city hall, during December, 1887. Alderman, another in the basement of the city hall and also in the city sheriffs office on the second floor, he said.
 Papers from the welfare depart ment were seen by Troy in the cus- tody of Alderman, but he could not recall having seen any records from any other department, including cheeks and vouchers, or warrants payable sheets or registrers from the controllers office.
 Troy said he worked two nights with Borgnaes on city accounts. He never talked with Borgnaes about the special work he did for the city, although he knew it differed from his tasks, Troy testified.
 Special Prosecutor Alcorn then called upon Troy to identify the signature of George H. Kingsley on numerous audit reports, which have been admitted to evidence in the past being taken from the records of the state tax department.
 Although he identified the sigma ture of Kingsley on many of the exhibits, he failed to identify others.
 Alcorn concluded his direct exam nation with questions concerning Troy's early education and his asso- ciates while working on the city books.
 Atty. Benjamin Slade started his lengthy cross-examination of the witness at that point, asking him numerous questions, in detail, about the procedure he followed as an &C., countant, working for Kingsley in the city.
 He received instructions from BorgnaeS, the witness said, with regard to the checking of warrants. and warrants payable sheets, bank reconciliations and other tasks.
 At many times, he said, he con- ferred with James P. Purcell, also a state witness, concerning vouchers which might be mislaid and books which would be necessary in their work.
 Prepared Report
 Troy said that he assisted in formulating the report which was subsequently, submitted to the city
 Objections by Special Prosecutor Alcorn were sustained by Judge In- glis when Slade asked if the 1882 audit accurately and eficienctly portrayed the condition of the city of Waterbury. Alcorn's objection was raised on the ground that he had not questioned the witness on that phase. in direct examination.
 Judge Inglis said that he was con- hdent there was no question asked on direct examination which would permit him to allow the question.
 BorgnaeS was his boss while he worked on the 1884 audit, Troy said, put he did very little on it. In 1885 Borgnaes was doing extra work which Troy thought was lon per- sonal property taxes" Borgnaes worked in the lawyers room adja- cent to the city court, he said.
 The work invoiced records of the tax collectors office. the witness said.
 Fifteen to 20 employees worked on the tax job, Troy said, which was Tor the purpose of providing a sys- tenn to facilitate the collection of back taxes. The assessors records were also used in the compilation he said. and ultimately q complete list