The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-05-12
Street Department Expenses Reduced by Transfers Claims Brown

! paydDlc SLlGeJS oIlOWn1B O11C pay . ment each in 1880 and 1895, the witt ness testified.
 There was one payment of $3,000 in 1880, he said, $4,O00 in 1881; five payments aggregating $lS,500 in 1882; five payments amounting to $25,500 in 1883; four payments equaling $30,005 in 1884; four pay ments to $29,125 in 1885; four pay ments amounting to $37,075 in 1886 and two payments aggregating $1S,- 956.25 in 1887, Brown said.
 Detailed Analysis
 The total was $161, ,162.O6, charged to the interest on floating debt ap- propriation, he said.
 Alcorn then asked Brown if he had prepared a detailed analysis of all the payments made from that particular appropriation, including actual interest on loans, banks, off, cials, attorneys, John s. Johnston, and miscellaneous.
 Attorney Patrick Healey, counsel for Johnston, insisted that if Brown were to testify from any document, 1t should be submitted to defense counsel for inspection. Whereupon Alcorn submitted the paper as an exhibit.
 Following a lengthy examination of the analysis, prepared by Brown, defense counsel objected to it. At torney Healey argued that his client Johnston, could not be charged with having any Knowledge of the "in- ternal bookkeeping system of the City of Waterbury" and therefore the figures should not be admissible
 Judge Inglis overruled the ob- jections, and Attorney Benjamin Slade questioned Brown as to the basis for the analysis and its ac- curacy.
 Asked by Slade how he could diff ferentiate between items on the schedule which he called interest and items listed as not interest Brown replied, T refused to accept them as interest because they are not interest.
 T have made computations of all the temporary loans as to the amount of interest that should have been paid" Brown said that his computations covered the years 1931-1937. When Slade asked him if he included bonded indebtedness, Brown replied quietly that the schedule had nothing to do with bonded indebtedness
 Drawing Conclusions
 Slades arguments that Brown was drawing conclusions to suit him. self and then putting them on pa- per to offer as evidence" were over ruled by the court.
 The controllers account to which the interest on floating indebtedness item was chargeable was overdrawn by total of $221 ,201.18 during the eight years, Brown testified.
 Brown further testified that the total payments made under the item of interest on floating debt was $549, ,767.29 during the eight years.
 Breaking the payments down with the aid of the analysis which was admitted as evidence, Brown stated that actually $238,13124 or 'less than one-half" of the amount drawn from the interest on floating debt appropriation actually represented interest paid.
 The banks received $238, "A; miscellaneous amounts to banks amounted to $19,131.24; city of- ficials received $14,9O8.10; attorneys received $1O2,605 30; Johnston $751; 162.06; miscellaneous individuals, $3,203.75; and unidentified SIG, 0,291 90, the witness said.
 The unidentified amount is rep resented by payments for which no records as to the payee are to be found, he testified.
 Lawyers Named The attorneys receiving the money were: Story, Thorndyke and Dodge, $2,280.30; Thomas J. Spellacy, $11,- 900; Carmody and Thoms $26,825; Charles E. Williamson, defendant $55,000; and John F. McGrath, ST. 800. he said.
 The actual interest payment rep resented less than one half of the payments charged to the account as representing interest, he continued.
 He added that there was no com- ment made in any audit report that the payments did not represent in- terest. The payments were listed as interest in the audit reports of the George H. Kingsley company, the witness explained.
 'They were accepted by the audi tors," he said, "as items represent ing interest and no comment was ever made"
 Turning then to the public well fare department, Alcorn brought out that the over-expenditures foS the years 1930-37 totalled $1,20l,- 045.11.
 Over Expenditures
 Broken down over a period of years, the schedule showed over- expenditures as follows: 1880, $5,- 718.97; 1881, $127O21.54; 1882, $3O2,- 473.42; 1883, $196, ,765. A; 1884, $l57,- 3l458; 1885, $487 ,619.73. There were under-expenditures in 1886 and 1887 he said, of $29,792.76 and $46, ,075 .O1
 Referring to transfers from the surplus resource sinking fund to the welfare department, Brown showed a Journal entry dated December 31 1882. It related to a transfer of SIS. 834.47. "In my opinion it was di- version" he said, despite heated ob- jections of defense counsel, which | yJaro