Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1884-12-17
GRANT 4 WARD METHODS.
Eve. BrssAers fnsssss Them in = susSsss
Way.
TfnssI


new Yerk Times.l
New disclosures concerning the peculiar
busjoeas transactions Of Even Brothers,
cotfou-brokers, at Nos 81 and 80 Broad
street. are made IRON day to day. To al
appearances, that speculative 6rm adopted
IN . modest way the dasb!ng methods
which earned y,,Inr Ferdinand Ward 70 the
top wave OF public notoriety. The teBor OF
nearly al! the numerous complaints against
Even Brothers is that compialnanfs (who
are mostly ladiesl were induced to In.
vest money With thai firm by promises Of
sure and fabulous profits.
Seventeen claims against Even Brothers
have been placed In the hands OF Charles
T.. Coddineton. Of No. 155 Broadway, the
lawyer who conducted the case OF Mfs.
Laura Hough before the Supervisory Com
miitee Of the Cotton Exchange. Ten
OF these claims were given to Mr.. Cod
dington yesterday. In consequence OF
the refusal Of the accused firm &c pro-
ducc their books before the Cotton
Exchange Committee II Is probable that
Mr.. Codtington will take the claims OF
bis new clients into the courts. Nearly all
OF these clients are women, some OF them
oarding.house keepers, some musicians,
and others the wives Of welLto-do business
men In different parts OF the country. rhe
aggregate amount OF the claims represented
BY MIR. Coddington Is $4,000. one claim
alone being for SS, 600, which. Il Is alleged.
was put into blind cotton pool. The
lawyer insists upon keeping the names OF
his clients secret for the present.
A Washington lady, who has directed
Mr.. Coddington TO sue Even Brothers for
a., 400, expressed The belief that at least
$50, 600 had been sent 10 the firm for spectI-
lative purposes by ladies In Washington.
Most OF this business was obtained by
sharp and persistent drumming" by
agents OF the irm. A Mr.. Davis at one
time represented the Ewe5s In Washing
ton. The stories told by the women who
thus far have admitted their dealings with
the Even Brothers agree as regards the
methods practiced By that firm. These
women say that they were ap.
preached by agents OF the firm, who
represented to them how easily mo.
ney could be made by small investments
IN cotton. They were FIRST asked TO put
$3.50 or $500 into pool, being assured in
each case, IL is alleged, that their money
would be as safe as though they kept IL In a
bank. In the two or tbree weeks follow
ing the investments the investors would be
pied into mole extensive outputs by
small payments from the firm described as
"profifs." These payments were invaria-
bly, followed by calls for additional cash
margins to protect the interests already in.
volved. According to the statements OF
Mr.. Coddington's clients. the cash invest
ments that followed the first ones seemed
to carry bad luck, for no more profits were
received.
The sagacity Of Even Brothers and their
agents was manifested by their conining
their assurances OF certain and speedy pro.
fits to mere oral statements. Their receipts
for moneys placed In their hands read as
follows:
"NEw YORK;.
Received from Mrs. - g. for the
purchase or sale OF cotton at our own dis
cretion. EVEN BROTHERS.
From the dates and numbers upon the
numerous receipts that have been given TO
Mr.. Coddington. that gentleman is satisfied
that Even Brothers did a very extensive
business Of this character.
The charges brought against Even Bro
thers by Mrs. Laura Hough. OF west Four
teentb street, and which are now being
considered by the supervisory Committee
OF the Cotton Exchange. are OF two classes
the first described Us "criminai" and the
second as " disreputable." Under the first
head il Is alleged that Even Brothers OBJ
tanned from Mrs. Hough In July. 1881,
$4,000 under false pretences, they repre-
senting TO her that they had three-thou-
sand.dollar liqIidated po@ in cotton, and
that three-tbousanddolla share would
yield her 80, SEQ IN the following Septeu-
ber.
Instead OF buying an interest in the pool
with Mrs. flough's $4,000, it is declared
that the firm used the money to make up
,aargins in transaction for l.. X. Hluk-
ley's account. After Mr.. Huxley had
made good his margins, thus releasing Mrs.
Hougb's $4,000, the firm, without authority
from the lady, bought, or pretended that
they had bought, seven hundred bales
OF cotton for her account. They. how
ever, did not let Mrs. IIough know OF
this purchase. Finally, they are accused
OF having In October. 1883, attempted 10
get a., 600 additional from Mrs. Hough by
representing that her money was still in the
liquidated pool, and that the extra $4,000
was needed TO enable them TO close the pool.
Under the bead OF disreputablc conduct"
the firm is charged with having deceived
Mrs. Hough as to the character OF the
transactions in which she was led, and also
with having refused 10 give her statement
OF her account when il was requested.
The offices OF the Even Brothers were
crowded yesterday by persons who evi-
IDENTIFY were seeking for information con-
cerniDg different transactions. Mr.. William
L. Flagg, counsel for the firm, said that the
publicity that had been given TO the deal.
ings OF the Even Brothers had brought
nervous customers down upon them like
a run on a suspected bank" The clerks
OF the firm, he explained, were work
ing night and day preparing state
ments for customers. Mr.. Flagg said
that had be been consulted originally
be should certainly have advised the firm
against opening any accounts with ladies'.
The name Of the lady vocalist OF this city,
who was obliged 10 appeal to a member OF
the Cotton Exchange for aid In getting her
money out OF the hand. OF Even Brothers,
was Mrs. A. &. Taylor. The books OF the
firm show that she had a Joint account
with Mr.. B. Wallace, which was settled
about three months ago by the payment to
Ms Tor Ior of &Drn