The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-05-26
Purcell Machines For
 Adding Questioned
tcontinued from Page l)

Warren M. Brown immediately thereafter took the witness stand, for the tenth consecutive court day. It was his second day under cross- examination.
 Attorney Joseph J. Seaman, as- sociate of Attorney Benjamin Slade, then took up the cross-examination where he concluded yesterday after noon.
 Bank Reconciliation
 He referred Brown to a payment of $360.50 to Philip Coppeto, which Brown said he could trace by @ bank reconciliation sheet, kept by James P. Purcell. It bore the nota- ton, "Coppeto," week end Septem- Der 12. An appropriation ledger dat ed October 16 bore a similar amount. for the year 1881.
 Brown. admitted that the $360.50 represented portion of the 8, Al, ; 480.26, which he claimed was ham, dled irregularly from the city's treas ury during eight years of the al- legged conspiracy.
 Next, Brown was referred to a payment of $52.50 mentioned in the Coppeto totals. The witness said that it was traceable from a war; rant payable register dated April 2. Another payment of $40.50, dated April 13 and one for $61.50, dated April 16, were identified. by com parisons of the warrants payable sheets, Brown said.
 A payment of $27.50 was identified by the adding machine tapes kept by Purcell, Brown said. Purcell, as witness for the state, identified the sheets as being kept by him, representing payments to the ac- cuSed.
 Seaman asked Brown if as an &C., countant he had ever used an adding machine to compute amounts, and Brown replied that he had and still does. He added that he knows some accountants who never add figures in their heads, but rather resort to the use of adding machines.
 After obtaining the total of a group of figures, Brown said, he sometimes attaches the adding ma chine tapes to the list of figures added, and other times throws the tapes away.
 Usually, he said, he throws the adding machine tapes away, after they have served their purpose. Would Remember With pointed reference to the fact that Purcell kept the adding ma. chine tapes for several years, Sea- man asked Brown, if after sever years, he would be able to tell what a tape, filed away, would refer to He replied that he would, for ht would attach it to an analysis sheet
 In further attack on the Purcel tapes, Brown was asked by Seaman if an assistant had prepared tht sheet and filed 1t away, and the as sistant had subsequently, left hi! employ, would he be able to identif! the payments represented in th' sheet.
 Brown denied that an occasion would arise in his business, wher he would not know the identity o the sheets, for he said, T go owe all the work papers in detail. l couldn't happen in my business, he continued.
 He admitted, however, that tn tape sheets identified by Purcell could have been made in 1932-33 o any other time, rather than 1891.
 All the items on Purcell's sheet had been posted in appropriation ledgerS, Brown said, and double checked there by him. Sometimes he said, the items were checked b, comparison with the appropriation ledgers, sometimes by comparison 1 with warrants payable sheets an' cash reconciliation sheets.
 Suppose 8 mistake was made Il striking adding machine keys, sug gested Seaman, and an incorrec figure were printed and added would that ,\lount be charged to defendant. Brown replied that 1 would not, for there would not b a corresponding figure to check l against in the city's books.
 He admitted however, that al item listed on the adding machin tapes might have been paid to an other individual than to Coppeto. i Particular emphasis was placet by Seaman on an item of $l95.5C paid to Coppeto, which Brown traced through bank reconciliation sheets and warrants payable sheets Brown admitted that that pay ment was regular as far as the in formation appears.
 Seaman showed that the date O the payment. listed on that sheet was June 16, 1881, and that tn sheet had been approved by tn board of finance June 18.
 The minutes of the board meet \ A Ns