The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-05-09

eS~eS S@@eSS had finshed one assignment for Controller Sherwood l.. Rowland, in January, 1888, she was sent to the basement store room in company with Martin Sweeney, who was to bring the transfer cases of records to the controllers office, for her to work on.
 When they arrived at the store room, she said, she pointed out to Sweeney, not now of the controllers office, the particular case she want ed brought to the upper rooms. As he statred to pick it up, she said, he found out that it was empty. Sub- sequently, she said, they learned that many more were empty. The state charges that the records were taken to the furnace in the City Hall and burned on orders from members of the group on trial.
 Miss EmmanuelSon first took the stand in the trial last Thursday, but defense counsel succeeded in block ing the admission, at that time, of the list which she stated related to oAAO AAthAANARobA 4COOlo0 4AlloOl1kk HUH the controllers office.
 The list, she said, was prepared under her direction, by six girls en- ployed by Controller Rowland in January, 1888.
 Special Prosecutor Alcorn, ques- tioning her at the outset this morn- ing, brought out that from last Fri day the witness worked to revise the list to make it admissible and that the task was not completed until II o'clock last night.
 The list was revised she said, by checking the appropriation ledgers for 1886 and 1887, ledgers which con- tain 8 reference for every payment made by the city.
 Items Checked
 With the exception of "A vouchers in 1887 and 38 vouchers in 1886, she was able to check each and every item on the list, she said.
 "The folders show accurately the missing vouchers and their num- bers" she stated, under questioning by Alcorn. T have listed the num- bers we were unable to find"
 When Defense Attorney George Crawford questioned the witness in another attempt to forestall the states plan to have the sheets ad- mitted as evidence, she said that they reflect all the checks issued" :"
 She continued that she had worked since Friday, confining her references to the appropriation ledgers, which are in evidence for the state.
 "Very few checks were issued without notation being made in the appropriation ledgers," she stated. Attorney Crawford contended that the original objections to the ex- hibits, which blocked their admis- sion last Thursday, "had not been cured" by the supplementary offer.
 But Judge Inglis said that the witness could qualify as an expert on the books. "We are entitled to have definite statement as to what the books disclose" he said. Crawford continued that the evil dence was not admissible under the voluminouS document rule.
 Defense Attorney Slade also ob- jected with lengthy arguments, claiming that the sheets offered bore statements of fact which should be determined by the jury and not by the witness. "The witt ness undertakes to arrive at a con- clusion-attempts to account for missing checks" he argued. "She expresses her belief that those checks cannot be found" Slade contended that the claims of ab- sence of vouchers should come from the sworn lips of an expert"
 Function of Records
 "The function of records is to re- cord transactions" said Judge Inglis everything defense objections. "An expert familiar with records may testify as to the contents, to make plain what the transaction was. It seems to me that the witness goes no farther than that"
 Attorney Warehouse voiced an objection, stating, Tt seems strange that the expert writes out the tes- timony and submits it that way"
 Judge Inglis admitted the record, however, after 40 minutes of tech- nical argument by defense counsel.
 Special Prosecutor Alcorn read from the list to the jury, stating that it was headed with the identi- fication, Summary of missing rec ords," from the controllers office in 1886.
 He said that the list stated the warrants payable register was miss ing, that 2,934 vouchers were gone, that 2,696 cancelled checks were un- accounted for and that 2,552 vouch- CTS and cancelled checks were gone. A total of 16,855 separate payments were made by the city of Waterbury in 1886, the witness said. She ad- mitted that, she had made no check of payroll checks.
 The witness stated that there may have been few cancelled items, but they would be "very few"
 The revised list, which showed 38 transactions could not be accounted for, listed 2,896 vouchers, 2,671 can- celled checks and 2,527 vouchers and checks missing.
 Attorney Benjamin Shades mo- tion that all the evidence and testi- mony presented by Miss Emanuel son be stricken was denied.
 Under Instructions
 q was working under special in structions from MT. Rowland, and I was given instructions by him how to prepare the list" the witness told Attorney Slade.
 When Slade hammered questions at her concerning the non-check of the payroll accounts, Alcorn ob- jected, but was overruled. T check ed all checks that could be located but the payroll checks" she reiter- ated. T don't know what the checks covered" he repeated. side stepping attempts of Slade to trick her on the items covered by the checks reviewed by her.
 Attorney Slade argued that the lists were nor based on facts, "only opinions"