Telegram-herald., 1890-02-26
TIE BROAD CASE.
The Prosecution Claim There is al ihe"n'
sistsaey Between AdHaitt~d f@se
aad Bro&a's InEoesae.

Aad Bro<a's InEoesae.
In the Broad embezz!ement case, In
police court, yesterday, the reading OF
the testimony by the stenogrspher was
concluded, and the deposition OF Mr.
steele. taken al the bedside IN Iona. !.
was also read. Mr.. steele simply denies
nearly every significant part Of the tes-
timony of Broad. The very last piece
Of testimony offered, was 4 newspaper
article offered by Mr.. Mitchell, for the
defense. When the reading of
the article was objected 10. he
explained that he expected TO show,
and ne here announced il as his line or
defense, the existence OF a pre-arranged
conspiracy TO destroy the respondent IN
name and estate. Moreover, he ex-
pected TO connect one of the attorneys
tor the prosecution with this con-
spiracy. The court permitted the
article 10 be read, but after learning its
complexion, excluded IL from place
IN the evidence.
John b. Corliss, of Detroit, then ad-
dressed the court, by consent of all
parties, IN the summing up OF the
evidence for the prosecution. lie began
by giving history of the formation of
the Steele Packing Company. Steele,
man of wealth, was persuaded
by Broad and Baldy To 60 into
the paeking-hOuse business, in the
spring OF 1887, although the real busi-
ness began the following July. The
capital stock was $50, 900. Steele was to
put in SIS, 600, and Broad and Baldy
sl2, 800 apiece. Steele paid IN his whole
SIS 600; Broad put IN $500 IN cash and
$4,000 in notes, secured by steele and
unpaid To this day, and Baldy put IN
about $1,000, making an actual paid up
investment of SiS, 900. Subsequently,
Steele purchased Baldy's interest, and
then he had paid interest OF $4,000.
Then Sinclair took a small interest
500 or so. The concern goes on until
December. 1888, when a statement is
made for 1888, but up TO 1889 no inven-
tory had been made showing the status of
the concern. The only inventory that
was ever taken was in January, 1889.
Steele never heard of any loss sustained
by the company in July, 1888. Prior to
December, 1888, there had been no
branch of the business was established
all was in flourishing condition,
Prior 10 December, 1883. there was no
discovery that any cash had not been
properly accounted for. At this time
the affairs are managed as follows:
Broad has charge of the retail business;
Sinclair is at the factory; and Steele is
IN lonia. 1t was then that Steele asked
A Il
On January 7, 1889, Broad took
the cash book and commenced.
Meanwhile Steele was constantly
asking for an inventory, and on Janua-
ry 81 Broad produced an inventory, in
which the real estate was put in at $780,
600, 1t is during this time that 1t Is
claimed that Steele is drawing out Sc
cretly three, four. five thousand dol
lars, and the man interested in putting
fictitious values upon the real estate,
on their theory, IS now asking Broad
about this over-eStimate IN placing 1t ut
$50 900. At the instance of Steele,
Broad reduced the estimate. AS to the
liabilities, it is 70 md that, instead of
S37 ,195, they are $47 800. We
here find Broad persistently rails
ing the value of the real estate
and depreciatlng the liabilities. Is
1t possible that n man like Broad did
not know that his statements must but
false? Could Steele have any motive
or purpose IN appreciating real estate
and depreciating liabilities? Mr.. Cor
liss continued with a clear analysis of
other parts of the testimony, but he
laid great stress upon the one point of
this method of dealing with the assets
and liabilities of the company, as show
ing that only the man who was making
away with funds could have any
motive for 1t. And Alfred Broad, and
not steele, by all the testimony there
was in the case, was doing this Juggling