Mower County transcript. [volume] (Lansing, Minn.) 1868-1915, 1884-07-16
CLEAR CASE OF ROBBERY.
Astonishing disclosure. IN Regard to

Grant = ward Faiiurs. -
NEW YoRK, July 2. Assignee Davies
has filed an inventory for Grant & Ward,
showing the liabilities to be SIC, ~, CAT;
nominal assets, $27, 139, O98; actual
assets, $67, 147. The assignee says that
1t is impossible to ascertain who are the
owners Of all securities in possession Of
Grant & Ward at the time Of the failure,
or Of all the securities pledged by them
and held by creditors as collaterals
for loaDs; also what was the
interest Of Grant & Ward in the securi-
ties found In their possession or pledged
by them as collateral for loans. The
books do not show with any accuracy
the transactions of the firm. No cash
book or journal was ever kept, no bal.
ance sheet ever been taken and no COM
plete list Of assets appears either upon
their books or among their papers. The
assignee says he had to depend on the
statements of the members of the firm
and those claiming to hold
the obligations OF the firm OF
doing business with it. In nearly every
case where the firm had dealings with GUS
toners or pledges of securities, the stocks
or bonds left in their custody had either
been sold or rehypothecated. No COM
plete book of bills payable or bills re-
ceivable was kept. In cases where the
stocks had been rehypothe Gated they
were generally rehypotbecat for
larger amounts than had been loaned
by Grant & Ward upon them,
In the rehypothecation OF securities
pledged with the firm no attempt is
made to keep together securities which
were pledged together or to keep secur-
tiles of one individual distinct from an
other. The pledges neglected to inform
the assignee as to certain matters con-
nected with the firm, which had rendered
him unable at present, to make more
satisfactory summary of the assets and
Liabilities. Nearly ali securities of any
substantial value which cana into pos.
session of the assignee, May 8, 1884, are
claimed by third parties. Many of these
the assigned claims, are subject
to payment by the pledgers
of amount loaned to them
thereon. In nearly every case the
amounts of these claims is in dispute.
Very large pecuniary transactions in
the name OF Grant & Ward d with the
friends of Grant & Ward we're carried on
by Fish & Ward during 1882 8} "a, of
which no record appears on the books of
the firm, and the only evidence of which
is found in the individual check. books of
Ward and in memorandum private books
kept by Ward and by Fish & Ward
jointly.
The assignee says information came to
him that Grant & Ward represented to
various parties that the firm had con-
tracts with the United States govern
ment which were exceedingly profitable.
That they borrowed immense sums from
various parties for the alleged purpose of
investments by the firm in such alleged
contracts and lenders were guarantee ed
profits of certain amounts. The as.
signee believes these transactions ere
nothing more or less than borrowing
money at usurious rates and upon fraud
ulent representations.
Assignee Davies says be believes the
law to be, that 80 far as a defense of usury
is concerned, Grant & Ward have waived
that defense by entering the particular
persons in schedule A., and be does not
admit that any of these parties are en-.
titled to receive anything from the e.
tate.