The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-05-10
Kingsley Company Had No Knowledge Of Finances Board Neglect

1 Francis B. Troy, who took the stand for the state last week, Slade said that Troy, an accountant for Kings ley, had said that during all the years he had worked in Waterbury as an accountant he had never heard or been told of anything irn- proper"
 'DangerOus"n
 "Are you going to ask the jury to speculate on the testimony of MT. Brown" asked Slade of Judge Inglis. "It's pretty dangerous testimony-it seems to me-" he urged.
 There's not much protection left" he said, If the state is permit ted to speculate as it has been doing with MT. Browns deductive testi- mony" In his opinion, he added, the auditors, were not called upon, in conducting an audit, to look at the post-dates of the warrants payable sheet items, as compared with the dates of the meetings of the board of finance.
 In firm voice, he repeated that neither Kingsley, Murray, nor Meaney, the accused, had any knowledge of the claim made by the state.
 Judge Inglis again interrupted to state that enough time had been given to the argument. "One thing that impreSseS me-" he said, "iS the testimony by MT. Purcell indicating that Borgnaes knew all about the ir- regularities and reported them"
 Slade was quick to submit to the judge that he believed he was in er- TOT. Judge Inglis, however, checked back in his transcript of testimony and read, with reference to an inter- view in 1885 between Purcell and Enoch Borgnaes, the missing ac- countant-defendan
 At that time, according to the tes- timony of Purcell, the city's chief accountant had said to Borgnaes, T don't see how you can avoid calling attention, in your report, to the ir- regularities."
 BorgnaeS' answer, according to Purcell, had been, Don't worry, I'm taking care of myself on my pen- oiled reports. I call attention to them. What appears in the report don't care"
 Quick to counter, Shade asked Judge Inglis, But does that prove any knowledge on the part of these men?" He continued that Brown is not qualified to express an opinion on the question under fire. "The opinion is immaterial and irrele- vant," he repeated.
 Side Issues
 He referred to the "side issues of Borgnaes" as no evidence against the three accountants on trial.
 He alluded to the Suspicion" created by Special Prosecutor Alcorn to only certain items on the war rants payable sheets, which were claimed by the state to be irregular. Special Prosecutor Alcorn took ex- ception to the word suspicion"
 Slade thereupon pointed out the number of items which represented payments to various merchants and individuals, not defendants, added to the warrants payable sheets in the same manner as the alleged irregular payments to defendants.
 Alcorn denied that he made any distinction.
 "It's clear to me that the subject is relevant and admissible" said Judge Inglis, referring to the ques- tion which Alcorn had put to Brown about the duties of an accountant. He referred to section II of the charter as mot to limit the audi tors report" but to assure among other things that the auditor will report the deficit for the various years.
 He further stated that in his understanding, the section called for a thorough audit. If MT. Brown says a thorough audit requires the calling attention to irregularities" he continued, it is admissible to the states case"
 In addition, the judge said that there was enough connection be- tween the defendants and Borgnaes to make the testimony relevant.
 To Special Prosecutor Alcorn, Judge Inglis suggested that he put the question in hypothetical form 50 counsel will know what fact Browns opinion is expressed on.
 Sustain Objections
 Judge Inglis said that he would sustain the defense objections to the form of the question but would over- rule the other defense objections. The time was 10:50, almost an hour after the opening of court.
 When the jury was called in, War ren M. Brown took the stand. Un- der questioning by Alcorn he said that he recalled testifying yesterday concerning warrants payable sheets, and allegations that items were played on dates, later than the meeting of the board of finance, supposed to have approved them.
 He said that the date on the back of the warrants payable sheet cor responded with the date of the meeting, as could be shown by ref ference to the minutes of the meet erence to the minutes of the meet ing of the board.
 He recalled also that he had tes- tified yesterday that entries made