Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-12-24
WHO EMBEZZLED?
VIM. f. THOMPSON,S ANSWER IN THE
EMBEZZLEMENT CASE.
A General Denial of the Charges and q
CounteraA litigation Made Against j. A.
L0vejoy.

Some time since VIM. F. Thompson was
partially examined in the police court
where he waived further examination,
upon charges of embezzlement in the sum
of $4,000 from the firm of Farnham &
Lovejoy, for whom he had worked
as bookkeeper for three successive years.
An Saction was also brought against
Thompson to recover $1,000 alleged to
have been taken from Farnham d Lovejoy
by the defendant. Yesterday an answer
was filed with the plaintiffs attorney,
which will be read with more than ordi-
nary interest by the public. Mr.. Thomp-
son. in his answer, makes some most start
ling charges against j. A. Lovejoy, which,
if substantiated in court, will probably go
far towards the acquittal of Thompson in
both the criminal and the civil cases.
After a general denial of taking money
from the firm the answer says that plain
IFS business is carried on upon borrowed
capital; that their aggregate Indebtedness
exceeded the aggregated net value of all
their available assets, stock in trade, bills
receivable, etc., in the average sum of more
than 100000; that James A. Lovejoy, who
had charge of the finances of the firm, de-
voted his entire efforts to preventing the
firms paper from going to protest; that
said Lovejoy was also engaged in private
enterprises outside of the firms business,
and used the firms funds and credit with
out any account being kept on the
firms books; that Lovejoy has
lived in an extravaganza manner.
owning and maintaining private houses
within the city of Minneapolis, where his
lo~v Iao 81
the information and belief of this defend
ant, had occasion to and has used of the
means of said firm large sums in salts
faction of exorbitant demands thus impos-
ed. The allegations of defendant are, fur
Their, that the firm has been hard pressed
for money, and has been frequently COM
PEELED to defer paying of accounts of less
than $50, by either giving note or time
check; and that they have continuously re-
sorted to street brokerage and fictitious
bank paper as means of shifting and lift
ing their mature obligations; that Love-
Joy has in many Instances neglected to &C
count either in whole or in part for mon
eys taken from the Office; that he has
drawn checks for purposes not
disclosed and has distracted the
vouchers when they have been returned by
the bank; that defendant objected to such
proceedings, when he was told that it was
none of his business, and that defendant
was told to make such entries as he was
| directed; that Lovejoy at divers times
| threatened to shoot this defendant if he
| ever disclosed motives set forth in this
answer; that as a result of such system
| of fnanciering the cash was continuously
out of balance, and said Lovejoy would
u ~ IL l.
dropping of cash items to an extent that
would make it balance; that said Lovejoy
had daily access to the books of said firm
during all the time defendant was keeping
the same, paid particular attention to all
| cash items on the blotter, and took daily
charge of the cash on hand by either deposit
ing the same in bank or paying the same out,
and had full knowledge of the shortage in
cash as shown by the books of said firm
! during the period of defendants employ
ment, and said books were as kept by said
plaintiffs express direction and command.
Defendant annexes to his answer a letter
Of recommend given by Farnham &
Lovejoy when he left their employ, stating
that defendant was faithful and first-class
accountant.
He further alleges that after he left
| PAaIAIino oAuPIoy oil orror was uIScoVereu
in the cash account of said firm, as shown
by thu books thereof. land the same,was
then rectifed by their paying this defend
ant $40.
It is understood that the defendants will
serve upon the plaintiffs an order
for production of the books
of the firm of accounts written prior to
Thompson's entering its employ, to show
that system of embezzlement had there
been prosecuted. Thompson states he
detected many little discrepancies in the
accounts which had been entered upor
those books.