The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-07-08
remarkable lack of Book Keeping All
Claims Against the Firm in Dispute.

1NEw YoRK, July 7.--Assignee Davies has fled
an inventory Of Grant e Ward showing liabili
ties to be $l6 1872 CAT; nominal assets, $27, $780,,
b9S actual assets $67, ia. The assignee says it
rs impossible to ascertain who are the owners Of
iii the securities in the possession of the firm at
The time Of the failure, or Of all the assets
pledged by them and held by the creditors as
sollaterals for the loans; also, what was the
interest Of Grant & Ward in the securities
Round in their possession, or pledged by them as
collaterals for loans. The books do not show
with any accuracy the transactions Of the firm
No cash book or journal was ever kept
and not a balancersheet ever been taken.
No complete list of assets appears, either
upon their books or among their papers. The as
signee says he had TO depend on the statements
Of members of the firm and of those claiming to
bold the obligations of the firm or of doing bust
ess with it In nearly every case whore the
rm had dealings with customers or pledges of
ecurities, the stocksor bonds left in their GUS
ody had either been sold or rehypothecated.
No complete book Of bills payable or bills re-
kcivable was kept in cases where stocks had
peen rehypothecated. They generally rehy-
Dothecated for larger amounts than had been
oaned by Grant & Ward upon them. In the re-
lypothecation Of securities pledged with the
irm no attempt was made to keep together Sc
urities which were pledged together, or to keep
rom another The pledgers neglected to inform
he assignee as to certain matters connected
With the firm, which had rendered him unable
% present a more satisfactory summary of the
Ssets and liabilities. Nearly all the securities
II any substantial value which came into the
possession of the assignee May g. 1884, are
aaimed by third parties, Many of these, the
assignee claims, are subject to payment by the
lledgers of amounts loaned to them thereon In
hearty every case the amount of these claims is
n dispute Very large pecuniary transactions
b the name of Grant & Ward with friends of
Grant & Ward were carried on by Fish & Ward
uring 1882, 1883 and 1884, of which no record
ppears on the books of the firm, and the
nly evidence of which is found in the
Individual check books of Ward
nd in memoranda in private books kept by
Yard & Co., Fish & Ward jointly. The as
gnee says the information came to him that
rant 81 Ward represented to various parties
nat the firm had contracts with the United
tates government which were exceedingly
rofitable, and that they borrowed enormous
inns from various parties for the alleged pur-
ose Of investment by the firm in such alleged
bntracts, and the lenders were guaranteed prof
! Of certain amounts. The assignee believes
nese transactions to be nothing more nor less
han borrowing money at usurious rates and
pom fraudulent representation. He believes
e law to be that, so far as the defense of usury
concerned, Grant & Ward have waived that
sfense by entering the particular persons in
hedule A, and he does not admit that any Of
ess parties are entitled to receive anything
om the estate.