The San Francisco call., 1896-08-14
CHARGES AGAINST
AN EX-BANKER,
A. D. Childress May Be
Tried for Criminal
Libel.
LOS ANGELES TROUBLES
The w. A. Vandercook Company
Accuses Him of Embezzle-
ment.
HE OvERDREw HIS ACCOUNT.
Letters Written to Eastern Agents of
the Corporation the Basis of the
Libel Charge.

Criminal libel Is q charge that A. ID.
Childress, formerly president and man.
ager of the now defunct City Bank of Los
Angeles will probably be called upon to
answer in addition to the accusations OF
fraud and embezzlement that were re-
Gently brought against him by the w. A.
Vandercook Wine Company in suit for
$1,000 filed in the County Clerks Office.
Certain letters that have just come to
light will be made the basis of the libel
charge.
Coming as they do on the trail of the
charges that were made against Childress
in connection with the City Bank, the
matter is of more than passing interest.
After the failure of the Los Angeles cor
poration and the subsequent legal difficult
ties in which Childress and his associates
became involved over the transaction he
came to San Francisco, and IN January,
1895, became identified with the W. A.
Vandercook Wine Company in the ca
pacity of secretary.
The ex-bank president had influential
connections, through whom the drafts of
the company on its many Eastern agents
could be cashed without the delay OF
waiting for remittances from the East,
and such accommodations were Just what
the company needed at that time. So
ChiIdress was made secretary and book
keeper.
Up to August of last year Mrs. w. A.
Vandercook, who was one of the principal
shareholders in the company, was satisfied
with the manner in which Childress' end of
the business was conducted, believing i'm
plicitly that his reports of the t1ourishing
condition of affairs were correct.
lone day when l asked to see the books,
however," SAYS Mrs. Vandercook, "Child-
ress refused me any information and 1
began to be suspicious. l insisted on a
detailed statement, telling him that l
thought he had drawn more money than
he was entitled to. This he admitted,
promising, however, not to take more
until profits had accrued, so that he could
do so under the terms of his agreement.
About month after that he violated this
promise and l censured him for doing So.
"Then he threatened to wreck the busi-
ness if l made any further complaint,
saying that he could and would do so. A
few days later, seeing that he could not
continue taking money that did not be-
long to him. he left the company, taking
with him lists and addresses of our numer-
Gus Eastern customers. He took copies
of all our printed forms, originated and
used by Mr.. Vandercook in the business,
and entered Harris, Kingston & Co.'S, a
competing house on a small scale, getting
into that firm through his knowledge of
the Vandercook Company.
Lacking the power to originate he
copied all our business forms, order
blanks, ETC., which are entirely different
from those of any other company, even
going so far as to use the same kind of
paper and wording them similarly.
"Then he wrote to our agents through
out the country on the stationery and over
the signature of Harris, Kingston & Co. in
such vindictive and Iibelous manner that
several of our agents sent the letters to
US, advising US to prosecute him for GRIM
inaI libel.
II thought until the latter part of his
connection with the company that he was
an honest man, as he was plausible and
was always talking of his own honesty and
the dishonesty of Southern California peo-
pie in general. At any rate, he must settle
with the courts for taking money that did
not belong to him, for we don't propose
that the money that he took from this
company shall be used to pay for the
house furniture and lawns of such man."
A. D. Childress and his brother, W. T..
Childress, owned 494 Of the 500 shares in
the City Bank of Los Angeles. They bor-
rowed $25, 900 from the First National
Bank of this City on an unsecured note
shortly after forming the Pacific Invest
ment Company and deciding their prop
erty to that corporation.
The First National Bank in its suit
against the Childresses alleged that these
deeds were not genuine nor placed on rec
ord, but merely held TO be produced in the
event of attachments by creditors of the
bank.
The com plant further alleged that the
bank magnates were insolvent when the
deeds were made.
n
been in minor as well as major legal diff
culties, being fined recently for assaulting
a boy who came to his home to claim a
dog he had lost. George II. Perry is the
attorney for the Vandercook Company in
the suit now pending.