, 1873-10-20
THE LAW COURTS.
Answer Of Kronberg to Hia Alleged
Partner Krauss.
Arguments in tho Warren County
E0nls Cases.. .

Arguments in tho Warren County
E0nds Cases. j,
United States Court. Bankruptcy Items
.-.The Criminal and County
Courts.
Following is tho anawor Of tho defendant. IN
tho case Of Krauss Y. Kronborg,
Defendant, lii hia answer, nllogcs TINT tho
complainant, KrauAs, came to him as refugoo
in tho first placo In tho city Of Now York, whero
llo was In tho Wholesale jowolry buslnosB, In tho
year 1869; that Krauss was q countrynan OF Ills,
and 10 procured him n situation In 1owelry
store in tho city Of Washington. Flo found,
however eoon afterwards, that Krausa had lost
his situation thoro. nnd as ho (Eronborg) Mt TINT
tino was about to ron1ovo to tho city Of Chicago
to establish q business, he brought Krausa to
Chicago with him, and having established him.
eof In said city, having desire to asBst krauss
Rs; worthy young man, ho ontorod into M
agreement with KrausH wherein ho agrocd to
furnish tho merchandise and other articles neo-
cBsary to aot up t, rotail jovolry buslneas In
sail city, In which Krauss should .act rs
tito ngont and omployo Of Kronborg, aud should
conduct such store, agreeing that whatover tllo
profits Of such business should bo, hrailss should
receivo ouo-hatf NB compensation for Ills sor-
Ticcs. The contract set mp in tho nnawor, OK
preasly provides tint Krxuss was only tho agent
and employe. mud In 10 senae tho partner OF
Krombcrg in the enterprise.
A short ti1ne ago, however, complainant filed
bill against sud defendant, alleging that he
was part1,or OF his in tho businoss ard TINT
defendant had, tn various Why's, nttcnntcd
to cheat and dcfraud him, mud to
ssss @ tst az tsr ns PsSspGfs se Try e tG sSt s n
Kronborg attempted to swindlo him by collect.
;ng nron policy Of INSURANCE iu tue liverpool
and London and Globo Insurance Company.
and representing to him, tho naid kraaHs, TINT Y h
tho Company would not ray my moro, and o.
leginr that complainant afterwards privately
collected tho other Thousand dollars upon said
policy md appropriated thu sanao to hh own
$4,000 which WAS collected upon said policy was
collected By complainant himself, md not by
him (Kronborg), no never EeceiyinE anything
upon said policy, tho reason why tho policy was
tho face of tho policy, being that tho policy was
IN tho namo Of Krauas nt tho timo Of the fro,
md, upon adjusting tho aan,o, 1t was fonnd that
said stock Was the property OF hronberg, and,
we're not legally bound to pay anything upon
had 10 interest in tho stock. But it Was finally
compromised BY paying $4,000.
It IL likewise falae tAat Kgauss had hired the
store on West Randolph street Immediately after
lbo fire for Kronborg, and TINT ho had pledged
The above policy to secure bonus OF $1,000 to
tho party Of whom he rented tho store, md tlat
Kronberg atterward paid tho bonus and charged
tho Same to the business Of tho Btore, Which
IrnuHs waa conducting.
Defendant alleges TINT tho store VAS ontiroly
insufficient for his business; and that It was
hired by Krauss entirely upon Ills own aolicita-
ton, contrary to tho advice Of dofendcnt, and
and TINT Kronborg lad no intcreBt Whatercr in
tho storo for tho purpose Of lid Wholesale ,usl-
ness; and that tho payment made BY Mr. Kron.
berg vas for the purpose Of saving tho notes of
Defendant In his answer allegoa that tho
statement OF settlement being nude and $14,-
600 found dno to Krauss is not true but shows,
III addition to the stock which was tAen On hand.
that there was little IN hia hands in the way Of
profits that tho amount in favor Of aaid storo,
IS appears from ILLS books at that time, was tho
sum OF $1,G7G41, instead Of $14 900, KrausB Inv
ing, during that whole period, retained Ats per-
and that, as matter OF flct, the profitB wero
about nothing over ind above the etocl Of mer-
chaudiso thou on hand. Defendant gives do
tailed statamont Of their acconnta from 1867
down to tint time, bis books prior to that time
having been destroyed by tho fro Of October,
1871, in which it appears TINT tho 1gureH givon
}v complainant in hts bill arc not worry difyoront
from those givon by defendant in hie answer,
tho difficulty with tho bin being in the proper
.Cotnnutation and calculation.
ltappoars from tho bill aud from the oxhibit
of tho state Of tho accounts, what tho profits III
Kronberg's hands during TINT period wore, name-
1y, 914,078.81, profits Which had boon paid over
ID him. In addition thereto, Ii auHg had retain-
ed his personal expenses, amounting 10 80, 22f.4 a.
which atlded to tho amount Of profits paid oyes
to Kronberg would make the total profits Of said
store. during the whole period about tho sun. Of
sll'Sso:. l'ssS. D ' N0 D'sN
Krouborg Ind paid MIR. Krauss, in addition,
about 81, 100, which, addod to the amount ro:
tainod by Mr. Krnu8s out Of the proceeds Of the
husineas, would leave Kronborg still indebted to
81e. irauss In tho SUM Of 81 1925. Kronberg
represents, however, TINT he had received no ro-
port from KrauBs Of tho amounts retained by
him out OF the proceeds Of tho business since
May g., 1873 aud that KrauBs has not paid ovel
20th Of September, 1878.
taiu tho stock OIL hand In their said store, which
is about tho sum Of $4,000. Adding tho proilte
OF tho Btore S10, 600, would make 93, 900 actua
profits OF tho business since It's beginning, Anl
defendant iueidts that this Shows that complain.
nnt'a allegations Of hiB fraudulent nets and III
tonttonH aro totally without foundation, US vel
as the assertion Of tho immonBe profits mndo b,
them. Defendant insists that his accounts wert
made up IN d bnainess-like manner, exhibiting
IN detail tile whole transaction. mud they hayi
alwaya been open to tho iuapection Of krausa
He did inspect them, aud WAS always cognizan
ofeyerything that was going On.
Krauss Ind tho entire management of til,
Htore; took In oil the moneys, paid over Il
Kronberg what he choae, returned whateye
amount lie choso that lie had tho whole mat
ter in Lis own entire controI. Aud delendan
alleges that 1t would 10 an imposaibility that Ii
should ha7e defrauded him, IA the matter VA
in hiH entire charge.
Defendant also alleges that ho did not vial
tho storo but onco yoar, mud that the pretend
ed notes which complainant ayers he was in
xueed TO sign were not Motea, but merely non
negotiable memoranda, by which Kronbor
could In case Of complainant's death, show tn
amount paid him, stating that thero was du
Kronberg for poraonnl axpenaoa tho two sum
charged in the bill; md defendant alleges thu
the Instruments in writing were not in tho for1
of notes, mud showed on their faco their object
being only momorandas.
Defendant alleges tAat his Aindness for com
claimant has boon abused by him, nIl clint b