San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1886-12-28
WAS IT FRAUD ?
San Antonio Creditors are Anxious to
Learn this and Secure Themselves.

San Antonio Creditors are Anxious to
Learn this and Secure Themselves.
The indictment OF ID. 1. Gaddes, Of
Murphysville, for swindling San Anto-
MO merchants creates considerable In
terest in business circles. 1t Is based
upon peculiar facts, and those who con-
slider themselves victims are determined
to prosecute to the bitter end for the
protection Of trade. From statements
made by these victims IL appears that I.
Hans & Co., Of Murphysyilie, long did q
good business, and by their integrity
and promptness won honorable posi-
ton. their credit being Al. Gaddes
bought their business some time ago,
and by square dealing maintained
THE PRESTIGE OF THE OLD FIRM.
He had apparently considerable means,
and gave 10 the mercantile agency in
formation that he had s45,OOO worth Of
property, not mortgaged, and subject to
execution. A short time ago he came
in the city and made the same statement
TO Hugo & Schneider, asking for credit
and saying that he intended to buy all
his groceries from that house. He Sc
cured credit and got the goods he want
ed. Then he went to A. Il. Frank
q Co. and made similar state
ments, and was equally success
iul. Then be played GOldfrank, Frsnk
& Co., against NJ. Half q Bro. for
his dry goods, and incurred debts with
both OF them. In fact he seems TO
have bought largely on credit and had a
remarkably large and good stock. All
appeared TO be well until San Antonio
creditors received information that a
stOckman named Holland had run an at
tachment upon the store for u note OF
SlO,5UO, alleged TO be due to him. Then
1t was found that G8ddes'
WEALTH DID NOT EXIST,
and that the assets, estimated at about
S23 900 and consisting mainly OF goods
bought on credit, was all there was to
meet liabilities exceeding 49, 900.
A detailed statement of debt Is not
attainable, but 1t is said that the follow
ing, among other amounts, are due to
san Antonio merchants:
Hugo & SchmeltZer see. ........ 81, ZOO
A. Is. FRANK q Co... ....,........ 5,lOO
GOldfrank, Frank & Co....... see. 400
HalH q BRO. 500. ...... ...."...... 0,0OO
ElmeudOrf q CO...... ............ l,6OO
LerOux & Cosgrove. 600
Riedel q Tips..... 200
Noyes q LanghOlZ. 2OO
1t is stated that Gregory & Co. had
good account against Gsddes, but 1t
has been settled wholly or in part and
that gentleman was recently here try
ing to secure Chicago traders to the ex-
tent OF 81 900. Accounts in other Sec
tions are being look for.
The friends OF Gaddes assert that
Holland, who is wealthy stOckman,
lent Gaddes' $4,000 to go into business
and IL was understood that he would
become partner in the firm, but he
had
RIGHT TO DECLINE
II he choose to do. He not only exer-
cised that right, but he demanded the
return OF the money. Failing to obtain
1t he attached the property. Gaddes
did not anticipate this and recently
bought largely In the hope of inducing
Holland TO 20 into the business, but
failed and was swamped. The San An
tonic creditors are not satisfied. They
have an idea that Hollands debt is not
strictly bona-fide and they propose TO
contest the attachment. Hugo Il
Schneider hold the second attachment,
and Of course the San Antonio creditors
are anxious to secure themselves as far
possible.
Opinions are divided as to Gaddes'
honesty, but his friends contend that he
has simply played risky commercial
game, and has over-reached himself. He
has given bond In S2,0OO each in the two
charges against him and the matter will
be thoroughly Investigated in the dis
trict court. In the meantime, the LIGHT,
in justice to all concerned, expresses no
opinion upon the merits Of the case.