The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-07-14

4WO OI the experts WHO WeEe pres" fnt today, are expected to be joined subsequently, by others.
 The 96th day of the trial was fea- tured by the calling of the third de- fendant to the stand to testify in his own behalf, John W. Meany. Previously, his partner, George H. Kingsley and Simon J. Alderman, Rnother accountant, of New Haven, have taken the stand. Both have denied participation in any con. Bpiracy to defraud the city of Wa terbury or anyone of any amount of money.
 Meany added his denial to that of the two previous defendants, by stat- ling that he had no knowledge of any kind of wrong doing on the part of anyone, in the city of Water- bury.
 Meany, who possesses s per cent Interest in the Kingsley firm, is a short, stocky- built, red faced man, A2 years of age, and the father of two children. He resides at Bogota, IN. J., and has been a 0. P. A. for 18 years.
 His education, he testified was ac- quired in the United States, France, Canada and England. In 1917, he estifed, he joined the army and Fought in the World War.
 Back to Work!
 Asked by Attorney Slade # he con- tinued his studies after the war was pver. Meany replied solemnly, No, was married during the war, and when I came back I had to go to work."
 The witness was employed by the Miller Franklin Go. which in 1881 was taken over by the George H. Kingsley Go. He described himself hs the chief accountant for the George H. Kingsley O., his duties consisting mostly of supervision of Held jobs. Many times, he said, when the company was busy, he undertook jobs himself. But for the most part he travelled from job to tob, checking on the progress of the other auditors.
 Invariably, he said, he would go over the reports with the man as- signed in charge of an audit, on the Ecene.
 His first visit to Waterbury, he said, was in 1892, when Enoch Borg naes was in charge of the Water bury audit. T had nothing to do with assigning men," he said. That task was in the Jurisdiction of Jo- se ph Spangenberg, office manager. T was out of the office most of the time" the witness continued. He added that Spangenberg, who ham, dled all the office work, relayed all messages to him, that were of im- p3rtance in the field.
 1n 1883, when he first came to Waterbury he was informed by B ,rgnaes that the 1882 audit was net complete. He said that he as- sisted by making up 8 bond sched- ule and summary appropriation st hedule. Subsequently, he said, he edited the report of the audit, as prepared by Borgnaes.
 Identifies Reports
 Handwritten reports of Borgnaes had been introduced in evidence, and these were shown to Meaney, who readily identified them.
 Selecting the report for 1892, written in 1883, Slade asked Meany if he had made any changes in 1t, in company with Borgnaes, before 1t was accepted. He said he had.
 Thereupon, Meany was called upon to explain and read to the jury the changes he had made or ordered in Borgnaes' report on the 1892 au- dit. He pointed out that he had added detail to the reports, and that as @ matter of fact several pages had been added to the report by him. The original report bore the
 .ndwriting of himself and Borg Lees, Meany said.
 Did you personally handle the records of the City of Waterbury at the time you edited the reportsa" asked Shade.
 "No," was the response. Meany added that in editing the report, he sat down with Meany and ques- toned him about 1t.
 In discussing the 1883 audits re- port. which was prepared in 1884, Meany said that he sat down with Borgnaes, and read the report, ask- | ing him if certain corrections and additions should not be made. No Suspicious "At any time you wrote these ad- ditions to penciled reports did you have any suspicion or knowledge of irregularities of any kind, of any wrong doing on the part of any, one?" asked Slade.
 "No, sir" was the definite reply.
 Referring to the report of 1882, Slade asked, Did you personally have anything to do with handling the records of the city of Water biIry?"