The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-05-10
Alcom Gains Admission OF BroUn' s
 Testimony Concerning City's Records

Before the jury was called in this morning, MT. Alcorn, referring to Attorney Shades objection on a question put to the witness yester- day afternoon, said:
 Alcorn: The question to which MT. Slade objected to was "Sup- pose I put 1t this way. Have you found any comment by Kingsley & Company with respect to the items on the warrants payable register sheets, dates of which don't corre- spond with the dates on the rest of the sheet?" The answer was: Tn none of their reports was there ever a comment made in that respect" ton: "Now, as an expert, MT. Brown, Then, proceeded to ask the ques- in auditing the books of the city, whether or not it is the duty of the auditor making the audit to report the situation which he found there in the examination with respect to the entry of those items?" My ques- tion is directed to the thoroughness of the audit. It is not 8 thorough audit that fails to report the safe- guards on the back of the warrants payable sheet, the required placing of previous number and the last number, which requires the state ment of the amount, which requires the amount of the condition of the appropriation, and, further than that, on the front page of the war rants payable sheet upon which is purported to be listed claims which the board of finance are passing upon, it is the affair of the auditor to note in his report the date of the various entries, the posted date, the date of the meeting of the board of finance. I call further to your honor's attention the fact that the meetings of the board of finance al- ways have been variably the meet ing of the date which appeared on the back of the sheet. You will find that by reference to the records of the board of finance, the minutes O. the board of finance meeting, and every date meeting of the board of finance is the date which is placed on the back of the warrants pay able sheet. Now, here is an expert on the witness stand who is familiar with audit practice of proper &C., counting-an auditor who is asked the question as to whether or not that situation should not have been reported, noted, by the accountant in his report of the audit. The fact that it wasn't is the very strongest evidence of their part in this con- spiracy to cheat and defraud the city of Waterbury-the very strong est evidence. There is no auditor of the most mediocre experience who would ever think of passing by those necessary safeguards to the honest administration of financing the city. No man would do it, your honor please! It could not have been oversight, that is impossible. And no one who knows his business and was to make an honest report-a thorough report-as the charter re- quireS, would have passed that audit without calling attention to those particular points. So, ask this witt ness for the purpose of showing it was their duty to have done that very thing.
 Court Queries
 Judge InglS in answer to MT. Slade's argument:
 Do you mean to take the position that if these auditors employed by the mayor had found an actual de- faultation on the part of some one of the city officials that it isn't their duty to report it? There is nothing in Section Il which would provide such @ report. We will not take much time on that. The one thing which occurs to me is there is Pur- cells testimony to the effect that Borgnaes told him that he knew about these irregularities and re- ported it. In reference to the in- terview in 1885, Purcell said to Borg naes: T don't see how you can avoid calling attention to the irreg- ularities," but Borgnaes said: Don't you worry. In my pencil copy of the report I called attention to them. What appears in the report, I don't care,"-and so on. That is what I had in mind. Section Il of the charter clearly does not intend