The San Francisco call., 1895-12-13

honest transaction. AS dishonest transaction it
was treated by Henry Miller AS an ordinary en-
money in October, 1892, was. in February, 1891,
discovered, caught and compelled to make good the
defalcation.
The explanation OF this painful episode is so
plain, any comparison of the books of account of
these two corporations makes it so manifest, that
the testimony is crushing and overwhelming.
have had placed for your Honor's convenience
upon this sheet the compared statement of the
DOCKS OF Miller d Lux and OF the Oriental and
Occidental Steamship Company. A very slight
examination of this sheet will show that the pecu-
lations of Jesse Potter had commenced as early as
January, 1882 had continued down to November,
1882, during which time ne collected the moneys
from the Oriental and Occidental Steamship Com
pany, and, thenI could go no further, and were
brought to a stop in November, 1882, because the
collecting then was taken from his ha nds and put
INTO the hands OF another.
POTTER PAID THE MONEY.
From this sheet your Honor will perceive this
state OF facts: January 25 1882, Miller & Lux
sold the Oriental and Occidental Steamship Com
Pahy 1or the steamer Belgic $769 IA worth of meat
The books of the Oriental and Occidental Steam
snip Company show that that money paid by
the receipt for the amount sic ned by him on that
day In coin, on the 9th OF February. 1882. Your
M1hor Rfa VII hnd by turning back TO the books OF
Miller d Lux that Potter did not pay that money
10 Miller d Lux until the 18th Of May, 1882. Feb
rnuary ~ 1882. there was sold for the steamer
Gaelic $sl2 81 worth of meat. That money was
pald by the company to Jesse Potter in coin on the
18th of April, 1882 They have his receipt of that
date. He kept the money until the 18th of May,
over to the firm. March Is, 1882, there
was wa sold for the Oceanic $79l "a worth OF meat
in coin on the 18th Of April, 1882. They hold his
receipt OF that date. lie did not pay it over to
Miller d Lux until the 29th OF June, 1882. And
SO it goes on, if your Honor please, to the end,
showing beyond question. that the moneys were
noe pald over py the colector into Miller d Lux at
The time they were collected, but that the moneys
which were collected, for instance, i'll March,
,ia insteae OF going to pay the March bills were We're
that the moneys which were collected in June
went TO pay the April bills: and so he continued
two months behind his accounts, until we come
down TO the bills in question in October and No
vember, 1892 which were applied to pay the Au-
gust bills After the 18th of November the collec-
tlons being taken from him and placed in the hands
of Rodoph, the next collections being made by
Rodolph Potter did not have the money TO catch
up with the past delinquencies and became from
that time defaulter
Nh. McEnerney-Now, Mr.. Delmas, you will
pardon me, but there is not any testimony in this
record that the collections were taken away from
Mr.. Potter at that time.
Mr.. Delmas-I beg your pardon. The collections
made Immediately after the two which | have
stated-whch are $500 and the s2500-were made
by Mr.. Rodolph and not by Mr. Potter.
Mr.. McEnerney-NeS sir; during that year;
during the next month Mr.. Rodolph collected, but
Mr. Potter did not cease to collect and there is no
testimony to snow 1t.
r. Delmas-There is testimony to show
actly what l state, if your Honor please that the
collections made after November, the next collec
ton which would have been some $4,000 and Suf
hc.ent to catch up with this defalcaton, made
by fdr. Rodolph and not by Mr.. Potter. There is
no testimony tnat Mr HOttef maue any COlleCtlOD
afterward. Hence. Potter became delinquent and
had no means wherewith to catch up. That is the
simple explanation OF this whole matter. He had
been paying the back bills with moneys collected
thereafter and the moment collecting was taken
from him, the back bills remained unpaid.
In other words, If your Honor please, The thirty
three hundred and odd dollars which he collected,
$500 on the 25th of october, SS2, and $2500 on
the 18th of November, 1882, instead of being
applied to the bills which Mr.. Stubbs paid,
applied 10 bills of two three months pre-
vious, which Mr.. stubbs had paid long before, but
the money for which Mr.. Potter had turned
over, and then when Mr.. Potter was deprived OF
the power of making collections in December the
collections which were made in December could
not be applied by him 10 meet the payments or TO
meet the bills which he had received payment of
in october and November, and therefore these re-
malned on the books unpaid and he was delinquent
HE WAS AN EMBEzZLER.
Now, let US take the other transaction to which
/ have referred. l have said that, at the time OF
Charles LuX's death, Jesse Potter had been, inde
pendent of this item defaulter and embezzler to
the extent of about $4,000.
Under date of January 3, 1891, four years after
Charles Luxs DEATH we find entry in the books
of Miller & Lux in these words: Jesse 8. Potter
in account with Miller & Lux. Indebtedness of
Jesse s. Potter on 18th March, 1887. Amounts
collected from sundries not accounted for, s23-
947 06." Mr.. Potter is asked upon that subject:
'o.-Mr. Potter, does that $23, ,s47 O6 mean that
on the 18th nf March, 1887, you had collected for
the firm OF Miller It J.Gx that amount of money
and not accounted TO them for it? Ayes sir
'Q.-When was it that you collected this $23,-
94T 06? A.-Previous to Mr.. Lux's death.
"Q--How many years previous? A great
many years.
"Q.-When did you commence to collect moneys
for the firm of Miller & Lux and fail TO pay them
over to them? Alt commenced in 1882.
"Q.-And ran down to Mr.. Luxs death a period
of five years? Ayes, sir. period of five years.
"Q.-And during that period of five years these
sums gradually accumulated to something over
$4,000? Yes, sir.
"Q.-You say that that is shown by the books?
AT is shown by the books; yes SIR
Now, this defalcation of twenty-three thousand
and odd hundred dollars remained secret until
the beginning OF 1891, when Potter was confronted
- fr orlI -Inl
relative his friend the husband of his cousin, the
husband of his aunt in his first marriage, his
executor upon the will of Charles Lux, instead of
sending him to the penitentiary, as he says he
might and perhaps ought to have done, out of ten
derness for his mother would not punish him, and
contented himself with taking his note for the
amount of his defalcation. What motive, what
ultimate purpose this harsh and unsentimental
nimity Will show hereafter. 1t does not belong
10 this part of my argument.
Before examining, however into the explanation
which Potter gives of these defalcatons of $23,000
let examine into their origin, their progress and
their final elimination. AS have stated, Potter
sales of meat for cash there paid him. In the
dinary course Of business these moneys would
box OF Miller d Lux, TO which they belonged. In
stead of doing Potter began in 1882 to be short
in his returns 1t commenced at first with few
hundred dollars. 1t ductnated, and then reaches
at his stepfathers death the very considerable sum
of S23,947 O6. 1t remained in this condition, un-
known, hidden in the mass OF accounts unsus-
pected by Henry Miller or by any of his represen-
tatives, until 1891 when IL was brought TO light
and Potter confronted with the fact, Potter then
acknowledging his liability and giving in restora-
tion his promissory note.
HOW THE MONEY WENT.
What is his explanation9 He is asked:
"Q.-What had yon done with the moneys after
you had collected them? A.-Some of IL / had
spent for the business.
"Q--What with the other? Al spent 1t myself
"Q.-How much had you spent for the busines of
this S23,947? Al could not state the amount
of it,"
He now claims that much of it was spent for the
benefit OF the firm. That claim, It was urged, AS
to no extent recognized by Miller. That no EVIL
dence of 1t was offered to him that time is mani
fest from the fact that he demanded and received
his note for the full amount TO cent of the de-
falcation. He is asked
Ibid Mr.. Miller insist that you should repay this
amount? A.-Certainly.
90. - The whole amount ? A.-The whole
amount.
"Q.-Did you tell Mr. Miller at that time that Won
had spent part of this money legitimatey for the
business OF the firm A.-Not till afterward.
"Q.-Dld yOu have any vouchers at all for any of
this twenty-tbree Thousand and odd dollars that
you state you spent for the firm Ayes sir
"Q--Where are they AIN my desk at Butch
erto wn.
"Q.-When you gave your note for this amount
the vouchers which showed you did not owe that
sum to the firm were there at Butchertown i? A.
Yes sir.
"Q-And the vouchers which would have shown
that this amount of $23, 600 charged against Won
was excessive and which would have exonerated
you to that extent at least were there, accessible
to you? Ayes, sir.
"Q-In your own desk-a desk to which you had
access? Ayes. sir.
"Q.-And you did not get them? Al did not.