The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-05-27
Text or Verbal Duel
 Betueen Accountants

Portions of the cross examination were as follows:
 Warren M. Brown cross examined by Atty. Seaman:
 o. On March there is sum of $2983.75. You have that extended as similarity of amounts.
 A. I have.
 o. Will you tell me what that is similar to?
 A. It is similar to the other large sized checks charged to the partic- ular account of street paving, etc. in 1895 as well as in 1884. The analysis of the account in 1884 shows that 95 percent of the total payments charged to the account went to the Ahrigador Digger. In 1885 approx imately 90 percent of the account of the items identified went to the Abrigador Digger. No other items of large amounts were 'traceable to any other payee other than the Ab- rigador Digger. For that reason I have assigned that particular amount as well as other checks of three or six thousand dollars to the Abrigador Digger in 1885.
 @. Do you call that a responsive answer to my question?
 A. Decidedly so, yes.
 @. Will you show me another item paid during the entire year of 1885 that Is similar to that item? A. Not an identical amount. There Is none. Same Conclusion
 e. You told me before it was that reason why you charged an item of $20250 on 8 previous sheet. You said that because there were two other items the same amount paid to the same person, because of the similarity in the third amount that you charged that per- son with that money. Is that cor rect?
 A. Correct.
 Q. Now I ask you, using that as the major premise-using that as the basis, where do you find in the entire year of 1895 another sum comparable to that $2983,75?
 A. That isn't 8 major premise and that isn't the basis for the al- legation of this particular item.
 o. In other words, this is placed in a similarity of amounts column for different reason?
 A. Entirely so.
 o. It has no relationship to any other amount that looks like that
 A. Not any amount exactly, no; but in size, yes.
 e. You mean that referring to a check of April 24 there was @ check for $62O5.50.
 A. That is one of the items.
 @. Can you find anywhere a check in an amount similar to that?
 A. I don't need to.
 o. I didn't ask you that. I asked you If you could find another check in an amount similar to that? A. I don't need to. But have another amount based on that item which is similar to 1t. You will note that the voucher is charged to two separate accounts. One item Is e695. That is definite to me that that $695 went to the Abrigador Digger because I have hundreds of that amount to the Abrigador Digger. A total of $5510.50 is charged to the truck hire account. c. But you have no other amount similar to $2983.75.
 A. I said there was no other amount of similarity.
 e. You have a total there of $6647.25. Do you find anywhere an amount similar to that? A. There is none. Similarity c. You have this item listed url- der similarity of amounts. Isn't that so?
 A. Yes, sir.
 Q. Can you refer me to any au- thority or any principle laid down by any accountant that you know or heard of that would justify your conclusion that you would be per- mitted to charge items such as l have referred to because you have said that they were similar in amount, and as a matter of fact, you can't find another item like that on the entire sheet? A. We don't need any authorities of law, MT. Seaman. I don't need any authority of lew for that. We gre dealing here with missing rec ords.
 (Answer stricken from the recordD
 e. Mir. Brown, do you know of any authority-any legal authority -or any accounting principles that you have ever read that would jis- tify your charging on this sheet or any sheet of e similar character e sum to an individual as an amount which is similar to amounts when, as Q matter of fact, 1t bears no sim- ilarity to any other amount in that aceount7
 A. Do you expect to have on an- swer to that question? I can't an- swer it yes or no. o. You can't answer 1t?
 4. Not categorIcally. We are inc volved with principles other than ' mm~Nssaxkf kfsas. emul.. .l..Iaa