The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-03-11

Attorney McDonough cross-ex- amining MT. Purcell:
 o. I think you said in your ex- animation with other counsel that when MT. Harrington spoke to you about the job in MT. Learys office, you were not interested in 1t.
 A. I did.
 o. I think you knew that that position would pay you more money than your own business was paying Is that true? A. That is true-yes.
 o. But you had no political ob- legations to any one?
 A. No. o. And you have no political ob- ligations to anyone today? A. No.
 0. To anyone at all?
 A. No.
 o. To MT. Leary-you have no political obligations to him? Have you?
 A. No.
 0. Or to Mayor Hayes?
 A. No.
 o. Or to your present employer, MT. Rowland?
 A. No.
 Recognizes Loyalty
 @. Regardless of any political ob- ligation, you recognize the right of an employer or superior in an office to loyalty from a subordinate? You recognize that? A. Yes. There is a limit to it, of course. Q. But you do believe in loyalty?
 A. Yes. o. Who is your present employer?
 A. The city of Waterbury.
 o. Who is at present your direct superior?
 A. MT. Rowland. | @. And do you profess loyalty to the city of Waterbury today?
 A. Yes.
 o. And do you profess 8 loyalty to your present direct superior, MT. Rowland?
 A. Yes.
 o. And when you were employed during MT. Leary's administration, you professed a loyalty to the city of Waterbury?
 A. Yes.
 o. And have you at all times since 193O exercised your loyalty to your direct superior and to your employ CT, the city of Waterbury?
 A. Yes. ....-.
 o. You have. You want this court and this jury to understand that. Is that true? A. Yes.
 What Loyalty Requires
 o. Do you understand, MT. Pur- cell, that when a city employe dis covers irregularities on the part Of business employees, and has in his possession discriminating evidence against those business employees, what loyalty compels that he would have to do?
 A. In respect to irregularities?
 o. Yes. All matters that are in- eliminating that he knows about. | A. Yes.
 o. What does it compel him to do? A. Speaking about loyalty to the city of Waterbury? 0. Yes. A. Call it to their attention.
 o. Then what-supposing nothing is done to correct conditions so far as your employer is concerned?
 A. Call it to the attention of a higher authority.
 o. You discovered, as you claimed under examination by Crawford, ir- regularities and discriminating cir cumstances on the part of the con- troller and employees in the con- troller's office. Did you at any time call them to the attention of the higher authorities when you discov- cred them?
 A. Yes.
 o. What was the higher authority you called it to the attention of.
 A. The mayor.
 o. How many times did you dis cover irregularities during the period from 1880 to January 1888? A. How many times? Called to Mayors Attention
 o. How many times did you call them to the attention of the mayor?
 A. Once.
 o. It was many times that you discovered these irregularities and discriminating circumstances. Why didn't you report them to the mayor or to a higher authority?
 A went to the mayor again.
 o. Then you went to him more than once. Is that right? A. Yes. had.
 o. You told me a moment ago that you went to the mayor once. A. That was in answer to the other question.
 o. Did you, on more than one oc- casion, report to the mayor of the city of Waterbury, irregularities you discovered? A. No.
 o. You discovered them on more than one occasion, didn't you?
 A. Yes.
 @. You knew there was a states attorney in New Haven County by the name of Samuel A. Hoyt? A. Yes.
 Q. And you knew there was in 193O an attorney-general in this state by the name of Warren B. Burrows?
 A. I did, but I'm not very familiar with the courts jurisdiction.
 0. You knew there was an attor- ney-general in 1880?
 A. Yes.