The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-06-06

that you were engaged to make the audit of the city of Waterbury for December 30, 1881 and you employ general fund, without authorization.
 Turning to Browns previous tes- timony, by referring to the official court record, Seaman questioned him concerning his earlier state- ments in regard to that transfer.
 It indicated that Brown had tes- tified before that the money had been paid directly from the sinking fund and not transferred.
 Today Brown stated that the money was transferred from the surplus resource sinking fund to the general fund and that the Kingsley audit showes it.
 "Then the record is not correct?" demanded Seaman.
 ''The record is correct roared back Brown.
 When Seaman continued to ques. tion Brown about the comparison of the statements, Brown demanded "Do you want to be picayune?" Seaman insisted that he wanted to be straight on the question and asked, So this record is not cor rect?"
 T think it is correct" said Brown, apparently terminating that issue.
 Brown was asked again today by Seaman to close the memorandum book which he has stated contains a digest of all the work he has completed after survey of the city's books.
 When Alcorn objected and Brown said that he was only referring 1 it to refresh his memory-Judge Inglis refused to order Brown to close the book. Seaman said that Brown should testify from the state exhibits.
 Lengthy Arguments
 From the 1882 records, Brown testified concerning transfer of $127, ,887.28 which was made ap- parently with the approval of the sinking fund commissioners to in- crease appropriations.
 A lengthy harangue followed men, tion of a $125,000 transfer in 1882 from the special school fund. The transfer was approved by the com- missionerS at meeting attended by all but MT. Goss, Brown said, and set forth in great detail the items connected with the transfer.
 Brown admitted that the Kings ley auditors could have seen all the details in making their survey.
 "It's safe to say they did see it," queried Seaman.
 T don't want to assume it." re- piled Brown, But the report agrees with the books"
 Brown refused to agree that the Kingsley auditors must have seen the transfers to report 1t in their audit report.
 Handing Brown the city charter. Seaman challenged him to show where the board of aldermen did not have the right to make addi- tional appropriations and transfer money from special funds.
 Personally I feel that if they had reviewed. :" started Brown before he was shut off by blast of de- fense objections.
 | Alcorn Protests
 When Alcorn objected to the ir- terruption, Judge Inglis asked that the question be re-read, and Seaman agreed to allow the witness to an- swer in his own way.
 Brown stated that section 312 of the charter had not been compiled with by the board, in making the transfers. "In your opinion" shot out Seaman.
 "No, not in my opinion" replied Brown, Tt was not complied with
 Brown admitted that transfers could be made from funds at any time to the general fund.
 Isn't that what they did?" asked Seaman.
 "No,' said Brown bluntly.
 He explained that the funds rep resented in the transfer should have been included in the resources for 1892 and the taxpayers given the benefit of 1t. Instead, he said, the controller, in 1892, expended money which was unauthorized, and fo, which no appropriation had ever been made.
 Aldermen Wrong
 Tt was absolutely wrong," he said And the board of aldermen was wrong in making such transfer
 He pointed out that 1t was ar available resource" and should have been included as such in the compilation of the budget. although Seaman claimed that the budget had already been made up when the transfer was made.
 In 1883 the witness said, there was a difference of $448083.24 be- tween his survey and the audits oi the Kingsley company. 1 In defense of the Kingsley au- dits, Seaman pointed out an ap- proved transfer from the sinking fund of S252,540.78 under vote of 1883 for overdrafts. Another trans- fer was made the same year. appar- ently approved by the commission for $i95 5,bA2.40.
 Brown contended that. he did not think the latter was approved by the commission. however, although the minutes show 1t. Tn his belief, he stated, it was recorded under an erroneoua date Uhicb has no refer