The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-06-09

Charles s. O'Connor, corporation counsel" he admitted.
 Cassidy also brought out that the statements concerning that account were kept separate from the in- dividual account of O'Connor. The 1881 appropriation ledger showed that $400 was marked for the petty cash fund, but Brown continued in his theory that in the absence of the vouchers he could not say that the account balanced.
 "If Charles O'Connor failed to ac- count for the petty cash fund wouldn't you say the unaccounted for amount should appear on the books?" asked Cassidy.
 T should say so, yes," answered Brown.
 Wasn't it Purcells job-checking , petty cash" asked Cassidy.
 q have no knowledge" retorted the states witness.
 Didn't he testify to that?' con- tinued Cassidy, who first started cross-examination yesterday.
 "No," answered Brown.
 Well" continued Cassidy. "If o. Connor failed to account for the petty cash in 1892 would you con- slider it reasonable if he got an ad- ditional $4o0 the following year?"
 Procedure Unfamiliar
 q wouldn't know the procedure, , replied the witness.
 Reading from his own cross-exam- ination of Purcell, which was con- ducted several weeks ago, Cassidy pointed out references to testimony which Purcell gave concerning a conference he had with O'Connor in 1888.
 Purcell, in his testimony at that time, had said that the $400 petty cash was not included in the budget. but was advanced from the payroll account, like all other petty cash | items.
 Cassidy pointed out specifically that Purcell had said that the cor poration, counsel had made an ac- counting of his petty cash nearly every month.
 Isn't that sufficient to say that Mr. O'Connor accounted for it?" queried Cassidy. T don't know" said Brown ten- aciously,N"I still have to see the vouchers"
 So," said Cassidy, "that's the source of your information - on which you say OConnor failed to ac- count for the petty cash-because you did not see the vouchers?" Haven't Seen Vouchers
 T haven't seen the vouchers or cancelled checks" said Brown.
 And so you charge MT. O'Connor with crime to put him in prison, D challenged Cassidy.
 "No," answered Brown.
 Asked by Cassidy if he would not accept the statement of Purcell that O'Connor had accounted for the cash fund once a month, Brown re- torted, q can't"
 But you accepted it in other phases of this case,' commented Cassidy.
 Fund Reimbursed
 Concerning Purcell's statement that the fund was accounted for every month, Brown said Tt means the fund was reimbursed almost every month."
 According to the court record, Purcell had testified that O'Connor had struck" an accounting of the fund with him, and then started of anew.
 Testimony of Purcell, concerning statement made to him by O'Con- nor, to the effect that the vouchers of the petty cash fund were destroy ed after the fund had been account ed for, was read. Purcell testified that he had suggested to O'Connor that he save the vouchers. The sug- gestion was made in 1888.
 The ledger of 1892 contained an item of $400, of which Cassidy claimed had been returned to the fund an amount of $363.69.
 Hypothetical Comparison
 In hypothetical comparison of the cash, Cassidy pointed out that it was the same as if a father gave $10 to a boy and then told him he would give him another after he spent 1t, but it must be accounted for.
 He dwelled on a theory that the boy might have gone to the Worlds Fair and to Billy Roses. (while the attendants laughed), then reported the expenditures and received more.
 Brown stuck to his theory that he had reported" 1t. but there were not vouchers.
 You're dealing with public funds, Mir. Cassidy" piped up Special Pros- ecutor Alcorn. Taxpayers money" Cassidy objected to the interrup- ton and Judge Inglis struck cut | the remark.
 "The states attorney is akashed because brought this homely illus- trat'on," commented Cassidy. but | fh0t remark Uaa aIau nIrick0n ont.