Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1866-11-29
by the books-and reccefpts'-~and more

Now from his own statements lean prove
my declaration vtrue, and from the last
table of figures will / condemn him." Mr..
Koontz here .qtectss not to understand that
| had particular reference to that pegiod
dating Jrona the I2fh of March 1915 to
the 10Th of August 1916, aud in support
of his positive declaration to condemn <.iAe,
only PRODUCES his TRIUMPH UP AccoUNr
in Mr. Feizer's time, which differ IN form
but not intact. from the one published by
me. This comes in very bad grade since
Mr.. Koontz in his prayer to the court,
most positively asserts that no errors &C
CURRED during the tine of Mr. Fetzer's
management Of the monetary affairs Ct the
concern. And yet hy refeteuce to tie decis-
ion Of the Court it will be found that the
recovery made BY hinlsenbruced tht geyy
perd,a. How then willatlie arguement. Of
his tddte,of figures condemn me--since ii
can be seen BY reference to the SAME that
THE DAI Es%eoref hateperiod i would
submit .uow. that if the assumption OF Mr..
Koontz, iii his prayer to the Court, that
no deficit OCCURRED during the period of
Mr.. Fetzr's control of the finances, he
true, that the EVIDENCES upon which
He FELT HIMSELF. SAFE an Jasiag9
hts de6turotioa, must have been withheld
from the Court, and as stu withholden
Jfron1 tie psllc-
MIR Koontz also obiectsto my term bal
ance on. hand lin tsielenee to Mr.. Fetz-
ei's account-and then adds: One thing
is evidept, it never came into my hands AS
RECEIVER. Is not tEat then deficit and
have not both the .arbitrators and the
Court So decided The endeayor of Mr..
KoonfzSto here represent himself AS RE-
CElVER of the MONIES Of Fetzer & Din-
gcs on,the 18th of March l845, uhea
has purchase IT interest icaM Jacob Dinees
did not occur until the 25th of August
1915. gives proof not more of the audacitv
and ,falsefood Of the man, than his purpose
to both ipjure me, and palter. with public
credulity,<. For the insult offered is net
confined to myself but extends to all, whose
confidence he would thus betray Not
content with the evidence of baseness at
forded by his attempt to confound periods
TO n'y injury, Mr.. koontz in this instance
has gone eeen beyond himself, in the en-
deavor at imposition upon the common
sense Of his readers, by coupling the de-
cision of the Committee Or arbitrators'
ard the verdict Of the Court into one SEEM
ING decision against me. Had failure
hitherto attended my effort to enlighten
the popular mind as to the true character
of this designing nan--his own conduct
in this instance, would not only have COM
mended the endaayor but would have Sc
cured the triumph Of my purpose.
Now as to the propriety of my use Of
the term "Jolunce an AanF' instead of
balance DUE" at which Mr. Koontz COM
plains, | have merely to state-Mr Koontz
asserted i'll his prayer to the Court, that
up this date viz: the 18th March 1S45,
no deficit had occurred And further that
Mr., Fetzer on that day went on to Bal
timore to purchase good" and that 'hc
made has purchase, and returned about
the 18th of March. Thus making an al
sence of oJoat thirteen days, during which
period it is reasonable to suppose that his
Hotel and travelling, expenses amounted
to about 500 The question naturally
arises at whose expense was this purchas-
ing partner absent for the purchase of
goods? Common sense tells us, at the cx-
pense of the firm he represented. WY is
it then that Mr. K. has nowhere given
the sclnblance of disbursement of that ma
turr?
1t would be fortunate for even such a
nature as that Of Mr. koontz, if the fore
going comprised all the evidences at hand
by which he has sought to peryert the
truth and thus impose upon public cred
ulty-but alas, other tokens Of this spe-
cial characteristic will be given, under cir
that will leave him neither
hiding place nor palliative. He says
Il grant that Fetzer was in the store with
himself. but Mr.. Fetzer was man of BUSH
ness habits, correct and honest, and not
prone to make these errors which do occur
in every house," bo sides the latter was in
the store Lut THREE or FOUR MONTHS,
whilst the former was there for YEARS.
Now the simple facts in this case are more
potent than any other argument that could
be adduccd. These facts are, that when as
"A boy | entered the store of Sibert Il Dim
ges | found Mr.. Fctzer a grown man there
in prominent position-such as salesman
and book-keeper, i'll wh!choffoce he contin-
ued until Dinges made purchas Of Slbess's
interest, after which, he Fetzer, became
partner with Dinges. This relationship
Mr. Fetzer sustained not only t, the 18th
of March 1915. but til after his return
from Baltimore Partner, and CASHIER,
it is but fair to suppose that Mr. Fetzer
up to the LATEST DATE OF his connection
with the firm held a position to which
mine was subordinate. Yet, with this
plain evidence to the contrary Mr.. Koontz
would have it appear. that mine wasa posi-
ton of marked prominence over MIR. Fetz-
err on the 18th dayof March 1s43. TO
tho character of Mr. Ertzer az , iyen NV