The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-07-07

HiLVer Salu that when he W0rked on the audit in 1897, he checked the vouchers with the warrants pay- able sheets, working alone. In 1884, when doing the same work, he said, he was assisted by another auditor.
 Assigned Here In '33, '34
 William H. Thompson of Rockville Center, R. l., certified public ac- countant, said that he worked for the Kingsley firm from 1931-1938, and was assigned in Waterbury in 1883 and 1884. He worked in 1883 on tax survey, he said, and in 1884 he worked on the payroll audit. In connection with the latter assign ment, he said, he paid of the police department at one time. Alcorn did not ross-examine him
 Thompson and Ritter left the building immediately after they had testified, and Miss Barbour was recalled to the stand.
 She identified 15 papers, which she said were pertaining to the pay roll audits of the city of Waterbury, as conducted by the Kingsley firm.
 Returns to Stand
 Today's session of the trial was the 92nd since last November 29. It marked the conclusion of the second week of the defense of the trial, but apparently the defense of George H. Kingsley of Hackensack, New Jersey, and John w. Meaney of Teaneck, New Jersey, had barely gotten underway.
 Miss Barbour, who was on the stand almost three hours through out the entire afternoon session of yesterday, resumed the stand at 10 o'clock this morning. Her work this morning was along the same line as that of yesterday, Identification of office records of the George H. Kingsley Co.
 Fifty-two sheets were contained in the first group, referring to bills rendered in 1936. Time sheets signed by various accountants, invoices, checks and deposit slips were iden- tified in rapid succession. But the procedure was slow.
 The fact that Joseph w. Spangen- berg, office manager of the Kingsley firm, assigned the auditors to various jobs was testified to early in the morning session by Miss Barbour, % years of age, and native of County Sligo, Ireland. She has been employed by the Kingsley firm the past eight years as bookkeeper.
 It was Spangenberg, and not Kingsley or Meaney, she said, who assigned the auditors to their vari- ous posts.
 When the bookkeeper had identi- fled the 52 sheets for 1886, Attorney Slade asked permission of Judge Inglis for a slight delay, during which the jury might examine them thoroughly.
 Judge Inglis paused to consider the request, and asked Slade if the jury couldn't follow him as he read from the exhibits. He indicated that he did not desire to halt the pro- ceedings.
 Given to Jury
 But Shade said that he had not read all the matter from the ex- hibitS, as they were identified by Miss Barbour, and said that he felt 1t important that they view them in entirety.
 Judge Inglis complied to his re- quest for time, but asked the jury to group in fours in order that time might be saved in the examination. Tn that way considerable time was saved.
 Court opened at 10 o'clock, and 1t was 45 minutes later before the first exhibit had been identified, admitted and reviewed by the jury. At that point, Attorney Shade submitted 57 additional papers as evidence, and these were examined by Miss Bar bour, then passed to the jury.
 It wasn't 50 much the heat in court today as 1t was the humidity that proved disturbing to those who were present by necessity. Few spectators were present today. Be- tween the weather conditions and the nature of the testimony-tech- nical and disinteresting-the spec tators have been reduced to a minimum.
 Uncomfortable
 Throughout the morning session of the trial, Attorney Charles E.. Williamson, a defendant who has testified for the state, sat back in his chair, away from the other de- fendants, and struggled with a cross word puzzle. Other defendants sat uncomfortably in the courtroom, at- tempting to keep cool by loosening ties and collars. Mayor Frank Hayes was among the first to loosen his tie.