The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-04-19
OVER $4,000 TAKEN OUT
SHOWN WHERE THE KRAG-REY-
NOLDs CoMPANY's FUNDS WENT.
Reynolds Sent Most of 1t to Ohio-His
Present Whereabouts-A book
keepers TestimOny.

various persons interested in the Krag
Reynolds investigation. gathered ir front of
Judge Allen in the Circuit Court, yester-
day afternoon and began the business of
examining witnesses. w. A. Krag, w. w.
Krag and Nicholas McCarty Harrison were
also present. but Charles M. Reynolds,
whose presence is more important than that
of any other witness, did not appear. He
is supposed to be in Missouri. Members of
his family will appear in court this morning
to testify as to his whereabouts.
A last effort was made in the morning to
settle the Krag Reynolds affair by COM
promise, the New York banks having indi-
Gated a willingness to get together" No
agreement was reached. and the formal in
quiry in the Circuit Court began at O'Clock
in the afternoon. Fred w. Expert, who was
bookkeeper for the KragReynolds Com
pany, was the only witness examined. w.
7. Brown conducted the examination,
though Judge Allen and the attorneys often
asked questions of the witness
BIG SUMS WITHDRAWN.
Mr.. Expert remained on the stand all the
afternoon His testimony was directed to
showing that large amounts of money had
been drawn out of the firm prior to its fail
ure. by Charles NJ. Reynolds and members
Of his family. The surl total was somewhat
over NS2, SOC. OF this amount. Charles NJ.
Reynolds personally, by cash anu checks,
got $42, 052 between Oct l. 1897, ard the fail
ure in December The White Paper Corr
pany, of Dayton o., of which Thomas B.
Reynolds is treasurer, got $46,lOl. This
amount was by checks of various denom
nations, which were carried in the cash
drawer as cash tickets and treated as cash
on hand. The period of time covered by the
checks was from the Incorporation of the
Krag- Reynolds firm, about three years ago,
until Oct 80. 1897 Up to this latter time
there had never been any entry made on
the firms books and the cash tickets"
were allowed to accumulate, notwithstand-
ing the fact that the White Paper Com
pany failed in December 1895. T. B. Rey-
nolds, brother of Charles M. Reynolds,
received $S1,S5S, personally, carried as cash
tickets i'm the same manner. The National
Supply Company. of Dayton, O., of which
Harry Reynolds. another brother of Charles,
is president. received $9S6s: and Harry
Reynolds, personally. got 1882, all carried
as cash OH hand by the same system of cash
tickets.
The witness testified that these checks
had always been made out by him at the
direction of c.. M. Reyralds He had then
had no actual knowledge of what became
OF them afterwards, excerr twice, when he
saw II. b. Reynolds receive the check from
his brother. Asked whether his permitting
the cash tickets to accumulate to such a
large number was good bookkeeping. he
said he had often spoken to Mr. Reynolds
about it. but that Reynolds had always
said that the moneS was ONLY loan and
would be repaid soon. He said the system
went on until he got such bunch of
tickets ON hand he could not we'll take care
of them. when. on Oct. 80, 1897, he insisted
that they be entered ON on the books. they
produced In court showed the totals entered
against the various parties but no account
of the separate items An effort was made
TO have Expert go over the stubs in the OLD
check book and point out the various dates
and amounts.
OLD CHECK BOOKS DESTROYED.
Only a few items could be found for the
reason that the old check books We're not
produced. Attorney Brown insisted that
they had been destroyed. The witness would
not say that they had, nor was he sure that
they had not. The old checks returned from
the hanks could not be produced either. The
witness denied any knowledge of their hav-
ing been destroyed, or his having been told
TO destroy them. He said bookkeeper
would not be supposed to keep his old
checks longer than two or three months,
and that he had taken no particular care
TO preserve these. The point was made by
Attorney Smith that Ii would be of no use
TO examine the check stubs in the case of
The White Paper Company, Tor tho reason
that that firm failed about two years ago
Mr. Brown replied, e
That doesn't necessarily follow-not in
this case"
The witness testified that no claim. to his
knowledge, had ever been presented TO the
White Paper Company He knew nothing.
he said, about the failure of the National
supply Company. He further testified that
Jennie Reynolds. who had credit of So 200
IN the concern. drew her money Out just a
few days prick 10 the failure
Judge Allen took hand in the question
ing. Said he To the witness
did you, when you saw how things were
going. ever inform the other stockholders
in regard 10 the amount of money the mem
hers or the Reynolds family We're getting2
NO. replied Mr.. Expert. Il didn't con-
slider my business 10 carry tales and betray
my trust.
"Betray your trustt' exclaimed the court
do you consider It betrayal of trust to
inform the other partners in a business
wher one partner IS getting out too much
money!
WELL" said Mr.. Expert, II was employed
hy Charles Reynolds.
II was further brought out by question
ing the witness that Dee. p. 1928. he and w.
w Krag each drew out $685. and that w
A. Krag and &. NJ. Reynolds each drew
81 1885, These amounts, the witness said. were
March 1886. and allowed 10 accumulate UNI
I'll the time II was drawn out.
Why did YOU draw your money out just
before the failure?" was asked the witness
Il wanted my money"
Did YOU know that the firm was embar-
mo. ! didn't knew that they had lost
money. though, and I thought the best way
TO make myself safe was TO draw my money
Attorneys say they win also show that