The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-05-10
others, with conspiracy to defrauc The city of Waterbury.
 While Jurv Was Present

Whue Jury was freSent
 With the jury present, however, Alcorn asked Brown, Assuming that the dates on the front of the warrants payable sheets were later than that in the back-and the latter date indicated the date of approval by the board of finance was that good accounting. And whether or not it was the duty of the auditor to report or note or make comment on 1t in their re- port?"
 "It would obviously be the duty of any auditor to report all irregu- larities," replied Brown.
 Early in the session, while the jury was absent, Alcorn referred to the alleged failure of the auditors to note and report the dates of var ious entries which post-dated the meeting of the board of finance.
 Strong Evidence, He Says
 '"The fact that 1t was not noted" he said, "is a very strong evidence of their part in the conspiracy to cheat and defraud the City of Wa terbury. No auditor of even the most mediocre experience would think of passing by those safeguards to the honest administration of the f. nances of the city"
 Defense Attorney Benjamin Slade, arguing against the admission of the question said that Not one scintilla of evidence tending to show that the audits in any particular are false, or wrong-or that they do not accurately reflect the con- tents of the records audited has been offered"
 He did not, however, he told Judge Inglis, take the stand that If the auditors had noted wrongs, 1t was not their duty to report them.
 Shade referred to the potential tes- timony of Brown as pretty danger ous."
 Alleged Prepayments
 As Brown read the list of alleged "prepayments" from his own docu- ments, Attorney George W. Craw- ford objected, pointing out the diff ficulty that would result to defense counsel in attempting to cross-ex- anime Brown, if they had no access to the document.
 After the testimony concerning the payments had been stricken out, Judge Inglis cautioned Special Pro- secutor Alcorn that Brown would have to testify from the records ad- mitted as exhibits.
 During the arguments on that question, Alcorn said that he had shown many instances of prepay ments of checks-all tending to prove the charge that this city was defrauded of more than a million dollars. AS we go along think 1t will be shown that the city was de- frauded of more than a million dol 1ars," he said.
 Make It Six Million
 sWhy not make it six millon?" asked Crawford angrily.
 Attorney Shade objected to the arguments" of Attorney Alcorn, and the remark was stricken from the record. Brown continued to read the figures.
 In his opinion, he said, the alleged irregularities should have been noted by the auditors. He commented that not one of the auditors reports con- tained any references to the situa- tion.
 Following Judge Inglis' overruling of Attorney Healey's objection to the time taken by the Brown testimony, Alcorn said that the jury should have some knowledge of the pay ments. He added that he would fol- low the testimony with proper in- Quiry."
 Alleged Illustration
 As an alleged illustration of the system of having checks paid by banks without any entry being made on city boks, the state had Brown identify 30 checks payable to Donate Pietraroria, of Bristol, a defendant. The checks were numbered in se- quence from fl ,187 to fl ,216 although the dates ran from June 10, 1892, to December 28, 1892. All of the checks were for $556 except one. for $2,16700.
 The checks, according to Brown, had not been entered on city records until December 31, 1892, although they were cashed by the bank, all most without exception, on the date of issuance. The warrants payable sheet allegedly listing the checks was missing, the witness said.
 He added that there was no au- thorization for the payments-and that they were charged to the pub-