The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-05-16

rom the digest Of his survey of the city books, and second to his willing ness to testify for the state when there was no question pending.
 At one, point when Attorney Ben- jamin Slade was voicing an objec- tion to Judge Inglis, Brown at- tempted to explain the issue.
 "Just 8 minute MT. Brown" ex- claimed Slade, You're not counsel in this case. Kindly don't interrupt when counsel address the court-it you please"
 Brown said that the classifications to which the transfers were charged were, for the most part in salaries and wages, truck hire, road oil asphalt, trap rock and street light ing.
 Ninety-f1ve per cent of the appro- priation for trap rock and asphalt in 1884 was paid to the Abrigador Digger, Brown testified. He said that the original appropriation was $199, ,764.05, and that the Abrigadol Digger or Phil Coppeto received $189, ,734.30.
 In 1885, he said the appropriation was $145, 5,243.51, of which Coppetc received 98 per cent or $142,527.25 Only one record of payment was available in 1894, out of "A separate warrant items, he said. Of the pay ments made in 1895, he said, 52 rec OrdS were missing,
 In 1886, he continued, charges were made against an appropriation for bureau of street repairs amounting to $163, ,728.66. Payments were made to the T. G. Smith Con- pany and Frank Santalucia, among others, he said. Of 37 records of ayment, only one, representing an item of $427 to the Chase Company was available, he testified.
 Identifies Records
 He was able, however, he said, to identify, by comparison of bank records, payments of $18,519.57 to the Abrigador Digger.
 Brown caused more defense ob- 1ections when he said that he had prepared an analysis of bank rec ords, pertaining to individual pay ments made from city funds. Rec ords of the Waterbury Trust and Citizens & Manufacturers National Banks had been examined in prep aration for the analysis, he said.
 Attorney George Crawford insist ed that the analysis should be sub- mitted for identification. But he was overruled.
 AS Alcorn asked Brown to con- tinue, it was with the remark, "Un- til we get another objection" At- torney Patrick Healey moved that the remark be stricken and Judge lngliS sustained him.
 Bank deposit tickets of the Abri- yador Diggers showed from May 12 to December 2, 1886, total deposits of city checks amounting to Sl1.- l50.49, the witness said, which checks were caShed, from the city of Waterbury during the same pe- riod, for $49,692. All charges were on the appropriation for trap rock, etc.
 A separate list made by checking exchange sheets of the Waterbury trust, showed in addition, that other deposits of $5,380.08 had been made during the same period, while other checks amounting to $64,498.50 had been cashed.
 The total deposits made by the Abrigador Digger, with city of Wa terbury funds, during 1886, was $18,- 519.57, Brown said.
 First of the comparisons of checks for deposit and cash made by AL corn, involved a check for $1,915.3 .33 deposited May 12, 1886, while on the same date a check for $6,346.5O was cashed. Both were charged to the appropriation for asphalt and trap rock.
 Coincidence
 Attorney Cassel objected, saying that it probably was pure "co- 
 We will show so many CO., incidences as to allow the jury to draw mferences." replied Alcorn, as Judge Inglis overruled the objec- tions.
 Under date of June 4, 1886, the Abrigador Digger deposited $l,- 868.50, and cashed another check Tor $6;632.25, Brown continued. July 5, 1886 check was cashed for s6,549.75, and one deposited for $l,- l95. .33.
 Others were as follows: Novem- Der 3. 1886, cashed, $1,981 and $5,- 612.25.
 August 1. 1886, cashed, $1, 1888. .OO and $6,384.25. September, 1886, de- posted, $l,768.00; cashed $5,881 .25 October II, 1886, deposited $1,195 .33; cashed $4,760.25. November 3, 1886, cashed, $l,989OO and $5,612.25. De- cember ?, 1886, cashed, $l,769 and ESCAPES. 2
 The total cashed wasN$49, ,692 .0O, he said, while the amount deposited was $11 ,150.49.
 Continuing on the records of the Abrigador Digger, Brown testified two invoices received by the city from the company, under date of January IS, 1886 and April l6, 1886. Both were for carting asphalt sand.
 The one for January IS, was con- nected with a check for $4,864.50 cashed January IT, 1886 and en- tered on the city books March 6, 1886, the witness said.
 The invoice for April IS was con- nected with a payment entered on the city books April g, although the check was cashed April IT.
 Statement Out
 While Attorney Cassell objected successfully, Brown testified in reply to a question from Alcorn that be- tween 1880 and 1887, the Abrigador Digger received from the City of Waterbury total of $802, ,51343. The remark was stricken from the record when Brown admitted to Judge In- ylis that he was testifying from a schedule.
 Whereupon Alcorn offered the schedule in evidence. and Judge f.. <v94~ a l...t4&aS Nx,ar aA<llklAxxaY <ln