The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-02-24


 been piled with other exhibits into tie corner of the room.
 The package was bulky, wrapped in manila paper, and tied with heavy hemp.
 Full History"
 The witness said that the records brought by him included records of Johnston's deposits, his signature card, credits and "a full history of the Johnston account from Decen1- Der 4, 1881 to June 21, 1885"
 And have you any letter with you received from the accused John S. Johnston?" asked Alcorn as the de- fense counsel looked over the rec ords of Johnston's bank accounts from December, 1881 to June, 1880.
 Alcorn had offered as an exhibit a transcript kept by the bank of Johnston's accounts. It was not the original record, but @ copy, made Fro the originals. The originals were contained in the bulky pack age that County Detective Hickey had carried across the room. It had not been opened.
 Fox, the witness, replied that he had brought with him one letter re- ceived from Johnston, and at Al- corn's request produced 1t.
 Dated Feb. g
 The subpoena, the witness testi- fled, while reading from 1t, was dated "February g, 1899 (yesterday) and was addressed to the Colonial Trust Company"
 The date of the order was Feb- ruary 21. 1889, and was signed George L. Cumming, judge of the court of general sessions, New York"
 Attorney Healey questioned Fox concerning the transcript, and learned from him that 1t contained references to accounts other than Johnson's.
 He objected to their admission in evidence, referring to them as im- material and irrelevant--he added that no prima facia case of con- spiracy had been proven.
 His important objection, however, was that the transcript was not an orlginal-not Q verified copy.
 Acorn described the transcript as made for "a matter of convenience to the bank"
 Accuracy Important
 Judge 1nglis commented, Before we admit the purported copy there must be some evidence that 1t IS an accurate copy. This witness is ap- parently unable to do that" The witness, when questioned by Judge 1nglis about the accuracy of the transcript said that he depended upon the usual efficiency of the people who make them lip for ac- ctiracy."
 Alcorn. apparently sensing that Judge Inglis was opposed to enter ing the records without satisfaction that they were accurate, stated that 1t would be as much to the benefit of the accused as to the state to have the transcript entered. It was understood that the transcript would be a concise record of all the huge books contained with reference to Johnston.
 "we1l offer the original books and then they'll have c merry time going through them," he threatened.
 Without further argument on the subject, Judge Inglis sustained, the objections of Attorney Healey against the admission of the tram script.
 Immediately Alcorn called upon the witness to produce the original records from which the rejected manuscript was made.
 The bank clerk reached to his pocket for e knife, preparatory, to shipping the heavy ropes which bound the huge package of books. After considerable trouble. during which he bounced the books from the shelf of the witness stand to the floor in the rear, he succeeded in opening 1t. Huge record books, sirn- liar to those kept by the city con- troller, were revealed.
 While he continued in the un. wrapping process. Judge 1nglis called Special Prosecutor Alcorn and At- torney Healey to the bench for conference. Within few moments, during which the trio talked in q low tone, Judge 1figlis addressed the jury and told them that they should retire to their chamber.
 He recessed court at i0:30 c. fn., half an hour after the start of the last day of the i2th week of the trial, the fourth week of evidence,
 The recess was called to allow bank tellers to go through the huge books and compare them with tho notations on the transcript, which the defense counsel succeeded in barring from the record. At the conclusion of the comparison, it was expected that Special Prosecutor Alcorn would possess information containing the numbers of sheets of original records containing refer- ences to the accounts of Johnston
 Broker By Profession
 Johnston, one of the defendants, Is 48 years of age. A broker by pros fession, he was also president of tho Electric steam sterilizer company at the time of the grand jury inves. tigation. That company figured prominently in the grand jury probe with special reference to Ave legls- lators who were charged with cor. rupt legislation, in connection with c Connecticut bill designed to aid the company.
 It was presumed that tho bank records would contain references to Johnston's connection with the Eloe- trio steam Steriliger company, aa well as checks from the City of Wa terbury. The jury charged that throughout tho period from ioS0 to July. ie37, Johnston devoted slightly over two weeks in the aggregate Of actual time in performing these al. legged services, for which he was paid Siei, ,74700 by the City of Water bury" It also claimed that Q sub- stantiai portion of the sum was split with enriain eitv 0ffieiala,