The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-05-10
Atty's Healy, Slade
 In Vigorous Protest
Continued from Page D

CeTIu IeIlLdl OI GTuCkS.
 As court adjourned for lunch just before o'clock, Special Prosecutor Alcorn stated that he would go into another phase of the case.
 Warren M. Brown, the states 59th witness in the trial was seated in- conspicuously in the courtroom as the Fist day of the trial opened with arguments concerning the ad- instability of his testimony being waged heatedly.
 For almost an hour, in the ab- sence of the jury, Attorney Benja- min Slade, counsel for the three Kingsley auditors on trial, headed the fight against the admission of the question, which he termed "pret- ty dangerous.
 AS the session opened, Judge Inglis ordered that the jury be confined to their chambers, and that the argu- ment, which started late yesterday afternoon be resumed.
 Special Prosecutor AlcorH stood and read the question under fire, whether or not it was the duty of an auditor to report alleged irregu- larities noted in city books under examination.
 Thorough"
 He pointed out that under one section of the charter it is the duty of the mayor annually, with the con- sent of the Board of Finance to hire certified public accountant to conduct a thorough audit of all the books"
 He concentrated on the word thorough" and said that his ques- tion depended on the alleged lack of "thoroughness" in the audits. Tt is not thorough audit that fails to report lack of compliance with the safeguards on the back of the war rants payable sheets.
 "The failure of the auditors to note and report the dates of the var ious entries, which post-date the meetings of the Board of Finance is very strong evidence of their part in the conspiracy to cheat and de- fraud the City of Waterbury" he continued.
 "No auditor of the most mediocre experience would think of passing by those safeguards to the honest ad- ministration of the finances of the city. No man would do it. It was their duty to make an honest report - thorough report" he hammered.
 T ask this question to show that it was their duty to have done that very thing" he concluded.
 Attorney Slade argued that Spe- cial Prosecutor Alcorn was in error when he failed to note in section ST of the charter that it is pointed out the procedure of when claims are to be put on warrants payable sheets. He contended that the controller is to number the claims and enter them on the books when they are ap- proved by the Board of Finance.
 Section 71
 Section Il of the Charter, he said, recites what the audit shall con- tain.
 "The audit in question completely complies with every subdivision of Section IT," he shouted. "The mere omission of any comment is no evil dence to show guilty knowledge" ,
 "Carelessness on the part of an employe is no showing of guilty knowledge" he continued, "on the part of the accused"
 In high pitched tone, he con- tinued. There is not one scintilla of evidence, to the present time, which tends to show that audits in any particular are false - or wrong - or that they do not accurately re- fleet the content of the records audited"
 "There is no claim that the audits did not comply with section IT," he continued.
 At that moment, Judge Inglis in- terrupted to ask if the defense at- torney was taking the position that if the auditors had found any de- falcations in the books it would not be their duty to report them.
 70 mo-" was the response.
 There's nothing in section T that provides for that" continued Judge Inglis.
 Over Expenditures
 Attorney Slade continued that the audits did point out various over expenditures of appropriations and various deficits during the years in question.
 He added that the reports were dependent upon their knowledge at the time the audits were made, not upon knowledge gained since the investigation started.
 Referring to the testimony of