New-York tribune., 1896-05-29
Mr.. VINKEMEIER'S INCOME.
EXPERTS EMPLOYED BY HIM PLACE IT Al
HIGHER FIGURE THAN HE DOES.

Further Testimony was taken before Justice
Gaynor In the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon
In the suit OF Maud b. Wipkemeier against Chris-
tian F. Winkemeier the candy manufacturer VINO
lives at No. 70 Eghth-ave.. and who has candy
manufactorv on Grand-st. The series OF ltigations
between Mr. Winkemeier and his wife resulted IN
suit for absolute divorce. wnich was trled Delore
Justice Gaynor some months ago. and resulted IN
Judgment for Mrs. Wnkemeier with alimony at the
rate of 5000 year Mr.. Winkemeier thought that
was too much and had Charles J. Patterson sub
stituted his counsel in place Of Mr.. Hummel' In
order to get the amony reduced Mr.. Patterson
moved open the Judgment for the purpose or TAX
ing testimony as to the means of Mr. Winkemeer,
and an affidavit submitted by the defendant In
which he deposed that he utterly unable to pay
the sum imposed. the income from his business
did not warrant 1t. He said that his net income for
1894 was $3.50 49, and tha, In 1895 II was 1913 g.
With that income he could not pay $500 year.
Justice Gaynor consented to reopen the case, and
It came for hearing yesterday afternoon Before
anything DONE Mr.. Patterson said that Mr.
Winkemeier had had an expert examine his books,
and Mrs Winkemeer had also had an expert. II
nigh, be well to compare the figures of the two ex
perts, and il they did not differ, much testimony
might be saved. j. J. Soley, OF Tracy. Board
& Patt who appeared for Mrs. Winkemeer.
said that he thought it would be better to examine
the bookkeeper at any rate and she was called to
the stand. She testified that her is Annie l..
books for four years She said that the only books
kept in the business two cashbooks and day
book. There Is also a small expense book which Is
destroyed at the end OF each month Miss Colby
said that sometimes Mr.. Winkemeler took small
amounts out OF the cash drawer and II was put In
the petty expense book and, after that book was
DESTROYED, there was no record OF it, He usually
drew all the money for his private use from the
bank, however, and the checks would show IT,
Bernard Fisher the accountant employed by Mr..
Winkemeier, testified that he had been all the
books and computed the income OF Mr.. Winke
meier for the years 1894 and 1885 He said that the
total receipts in 1894 as shown by the books were
ing a balance earned of 81. 40S 49, The next year
the receipts were sl07,60 l2 and the disbursements
% % SavTg W sea BALANCE sa tss, Of ,S s rsSous
was his assistant and that the examination OF the
books had been made under his personal super
vision and the statement OF the income OF Mr.
Winkemeier, so far as 1t could be ascertained from
4, the books, was entirely correct
Then the sworn statement Of the defendant that
his income for the year 1894 $3.50 ~ grossly
untrue. was it?" asked Mr. Soley In cross-examina-
ton.
so far know II was" replied Mr. Tcele,
And the statement which he made that his in
come In 1888 was S.lS5 G was also untrue?'
Yes sir"
Mr.. Winkeme,er was called to the stand as the
next witness He did appear at all on the trial
OF the suit against him for divorce and one OF the
grounds OF the application for a reopening OF the
Mr.. Patterson. Mr.. Winkemeier said that he had
been married twice and that the three children by
to support them. The child by the plaintiff is now
In the custody OF his mother. Mr. Winkemeier said
that he thought h, bis property in Elghth-ave. was
about the same amount. Regarding the statements
which he had made as to his income ne said that
he went over his books with his bookkeeper and
he believed them 70 be correct. Every one was
likely to make mistakes and he was convinced that
he had been mistaken.
come Of the defendant was continued at length and
decision was reserved