The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-05-26

"Coppeto-week ending September B" and an amount similar to the sum of $36O.50 is posted in the ap- propriation ledger on the date of October 16. You have included this ing of June IS, showed that "mis- cellaneous bills and payroll were approved and payment ordered" &C., cording to a reading by Brown.
 The appropriation to which the payment of $$195 50 was charged was originally $25,000 for street repairs, and was reduced to $25,061.27 by that payment and others, the &C., countant said.
 50 far as the information here now appears, it was regular" Brown admitted.
 Payment Added Brown said further that the pay ment was added to the list of pay ments made to Brown on his sheets. It was added to the accumulation of $9,763.72 paid to Coppeto that year, and to the $3,441 ,486.26 al- legedly paid to all the defendants during the eight years.
 Would you be willing to say what I have recited to you with reference to this item also is true of all the items so we Non't have to go through them all?" asked Seaman.
 "Yes," replied Brown, except the condition of the appropriation"
 To which Judge Inglis put the query, Do you mean that these were not paid prior to approval?"
 "That I can't say," replied Brown. And MT. Seaman did not ask me-" he pointed out smilingly
 Brown then pointed out that the city,s depository for 1881 had been the Merchants Trust company which is now out of existence, and that no records of the bank are available. So from all have here the item appears regular" he re- sponded.
 Seaman asked the witness if he would concede that the payments thus were not entered subsequent te the date of the approval.
 q have conceded that" BroWl replied.
 Proper Assumption
 It was at that point that Seaman asked Brown if it was not just a! proper for him to assume that tht items were approved, as it was fol Brown to say that they were no approved.
 Brown replied in the affirmative He said that as the sheets were no dated, they might have been ap proved at any time.
 Then Seaman, turning to Browl said,, Forget you are an investiga tor coming into this picture afte you have had all the knowledg and informatoin furnished you b, the state. Consider yourself a C P. A. engaged in an audit. Dea with specific cases, now" he said "and don't make any speeches"
 Seaman started to point out t' Brown, that in the mythical case h' cited. Brown had come in to mak' the audit after the close of year probably January, February O March.
 Brown pointed out that ther' might have been an interim audit conducted.
 Assume that you did not" sait Seaman.
 Pointing to a warrants payable sheet, Seaman asked Brown to sup pose that one of his assistants wa handling 1t, and that he saw thu date on it, the minutes of the board of finance, showing that all claim had been approved and ordered paid.
 Can you think of any reason why he should question thos' items?" asked Seaman.
 Reply Unexpected
 But Brown was not looking at thu sheet Seaman thought he was look ing at. His reply was startling, "Ye first he would question the make up of the sheet. The numbers O the warrants do not run even nearl. in sequence. That's the first thinl he would inquire about"
 Seaman then asked Brown tt turn to July 16 sheet, which was th' one he referred to originally. II that sheet, Brown, said that all tht warrants ran in good order, apo there would be no question on tha particular sheet.
 Concerning the other sheet, how ever, Brown said, I'm pretty sur' my assistant would question tha Sheet. Any man working for mt would.
 i Seaman next turned his attention to an item of $36050 charged tt Coppeto on the Brown lists. Int witness said that his only basis fol that charge was a Similarity O amounts"
 Two other items of $360.50, pay. able to Coppetto, were listed within the month of September, 1881 Brown said, therefore he considered the other must also be payable tC Coppeto.
 Feels Sure
 "You don't mean to tell me that because two other payments in that amount were paid Coppeto, thi: third one must be also," cried Sea- man.
 T feel sure it was," replied Brown. When Seaman asked what account it was charged to Brown re- piled to park department ac- count. When Seaman pointed out that it might have been for renta of trucks. Brown said that there was no records to show that any services had been performed.
 He admitted that 1t was probable that if four amounts, similar to tho others, had been listed, he might have listed them as against Coppeto He denied, however, that ten pay. ments. spread over long period ol time would be so listed.
 T have perfectly good reason fol assigning that to Coppeto," he said
 Although he admitted that ths payment was made to Coppeto Cir his opinion" he blurted out that hs must base the claim on opinion, ai "the records were destroyed" Au-