The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-02-23

were endorsed for deposit at tht Waterbury Trust Go. January 5 1888, the day that Controller Sher- wood L. Rowland succeeded the de- fendant Controller Daniel J. Leary in office.
 On the same trend Of thought the Santalucia checks - Alcorn brought back into evidence, the war rants payable sheets for December 1887. He claims that the December sheets are the only ones available for 1887.
 Again Cassidy objected, stating that Purcell, as far as evidence shows, knows nothing about the warrants payable registers, or when entries were made. Again he was overruled.
 Alcorn called attention of the wit ness Purcell to the date at the left of the entry of the IS cheeks. It was December 31, 1887, the same dats they were issued.
 q observe that the checks went into the bank on endorsement of January B." he said.
 No Endorsement
 "Is there any endorsement of the board of finance?" queried Alcorn with reference to the December sheet.
 No" was the reply.
 Cassidy objected, stating that the statements of Purcell were a mat ter of deduction and conclusion"
 Holding the December sheet up for the view of the jury, Alcorn said sharply, There are no signatures whatever on the back of the war rants payable register on which the checks were entered" He also showed the jury where the sigma lures of the controller and the members of the board of finance would ordinarily be contained.
 They were not approved by the board of finance" remarked Pur- cell in answer to a question by AL corn concerning the Santalucia payments.
 Alcorn then admitted he was fin- ished for the time on that subject, and Cassidy obtained permission to examine the checks and talk to the jury. He pointed out that each check contained stamped number not a pencilled number-and that each was endorsed for deposit at the Waterbury Trust Company.
 Checks Admitted
 Bills later connected to the 1S checks were admitted to evidence. Acorn said they were bills present. ed to the city of Waterbury, dated December 27, 1887.
 Basis of the bills, according to the exhibits. were rentals of water pumps, trucks, steam shovel. steam roller, air compressor, crane and other equipment.
 Acorn pointed out that each of the bills contained the notation, "OK-by Thomas J. Fleming, Su- perintendent of Streets" Fleming is a defendant in the trial, and it was the first time his name had actual ly been mentioned.
 Attorney Patrick Healey, counsel for Fleming made haste to point out that each bill included reference to the particular job on which the Santalucia equipment had been used and the dates. He also said, while examining the bills, that they contained the notation, Posted H. T." Purcell said that H. T. would be Mrs. Helen Tehan Smith, a for mer clerk in the controllers office.
 A long list of streets, indicating places where the Santalucia equip ment was used, in connection with the bills, was read by Healey. Those mentioned included" South Main and Eagle streets Several instanc- es); municipal athletic field; South Main street, city yards, Eagle street, Greenwood avenue, Frost road, Radcliffe avenue"
 Steam Roller
 It was said that there was one blank one. that is, without refer ence to street. He said that was for rental of steam roller for three and one half days at $1650 per day" There was also mention of use of Santalucia equipment on Robbins street.
 Another group of 36 checks, which Purcell said were dated tat various times in 1887" were then placed in evidence. All were payable tc Frankie Burns, individually, Purcell said.
 This group, representing tota. payments of $l0,425.13, according tc the calculations of the specia prosecutor, contained signatures ol Leary and Dunn. Some were charged to WPA funds. It was for this grour that some endorsements were made by Santalucia and his wife, contain ing the stamps of the Waterbury Savings Bank.
 Following that group, Alcorr called upon his witness, on the stand for the, eighth consecutive court day, to identify Il duplicate city checks. Purcell said the dupll. cates had been made out by MT Learys secretary.
 Cassidy hotly objected to the ad- mission of the duplicates, saying they were not true copies and wher he was overruled by Judge Inglis and Alcorn referred to the fact thai the checks were unsigned, he agar objected, that "an unfavorable i'm pression was being created"
 He was joined in this by Atty Patrick Healey, who stated, that the checks, as duplicates, should not be signed. "They are only carbon copies he said. Again Judge Inglis over- ruled the objections.
 Checks for Santalucia
 With the sanction of the court Alcorn read into the record tho checks and invoices pertaining tc the payments between August l 1884 and December 29, 1884, to San talucia by the city. Some cheeks were addressed to Santalucia at 66 Congress avenue and others to 1928 Highland avenue.
 They were as follows:
 August l, 1884, for carting crushed stone from Meriden to Waterbury