The record-union., 1899-10-11

ranging from $500 to 81, 400. Witness
said the cash book would show what
was done with the money, but ne, as
assignee, was not required to keep the
book, and did not do so. Witness ex-
planned that the business transacted
for Mrs. Gregory was merely matter
| of accommodation to her that the
| sums she was credited with were de-
posted to meet personal obligations,
and not those of the firm. Mrs. Greg
ory, witness said, occasionally assisted
her sons by advancing money to them'
or guaranteeing the payment of some
of their obligations.
The witness could not tell whether
the cash books of the firm were or
were not in existence-that he kept as
assignee only the ledgers, showing the
financial condition of the firm. He left
the books at the store when he left
there, but had no knowledge that they
were destroyed until Frank Gregory SO
testified earlier in the day. He said
that Mary A. Gregory was never a
member Of the firm of Gregory Bros.
leo.
] Judge Hinkson submitted to the
i Court that the fact that the cash
books, the only ones which would give
a detailed and succinct idea of the use
LOT funds had been destroyed, was in
itself suspicious circumstance, as by
means of those books it might have
Ebeen ascertained whether or not Mary
"A. Gregory was a member of the firm.
Witness testified that after the firm
OF Gregory Bros Company went
through insolvency, Mrs. Gregory
started produce business in the same
place, retaining most of the old en-
4 ,iployes. Frank Gregory was also hired
4 and drew salary. Witness supposed
4 Gregory helped himself out of the till,
4 at times, and at other times he asked
q his mother for his salary and she paid
4 it to him. Frank Gregory owed her a
large sum of money, as a member of
the old firm.
! Witness said that the firm of Gre
CORY Bros. Company paid Mrs Gregory
rental for the building in which the
store was conducted
! Fred Van Walbeck, who was en-
ployed as collector for the firm of Gre
CORY Bros. Company at the time it
went through insolvency, was called,
and said he had seen Mrs Mary A.
heard her say that she was interested
financially in the firm, and knew moth
ing about the matter whatever. He
was excused
| u. ID. Watson, who was Stenogra apher
and clerk in the employ of Gregory
Bros. Company prior and up to the
time they failed. had often seen
Mrs. Gregory in the store, and while he
had never heard either her, Frank
or Eugene say anything about any in
terest she had in the firm, and was in
clined to believe that she had no such
interest
The plaintiffs attorney rested their
case, and Judge Shinn, for the defense,
moved a non-suit in the matter of
Frank Gregory, as executor, submitting
! that absolutely no proof had been made
of the truthfulness of the allegation
that Mary E. Gregory was a partner
in the firm of Gregory Bros Company;
that there had been no showing mace
that she was interested in the firm, ex-
cept to act as surety for their obN-
cations.
Judge Hinkson, for the plaintiff, sig
nified his willingness to submit the
matter without argument, but on Judge
Prewett requesting to hear from him,
he said he was not prepared to say
/ the non-suit should not be granted. He
fsaid the prosecution had acted in good
faith in the matter.
Judge Prewett said he appreciated
the fact that the evidence the pros
ecution expected to produce would have
TO emanate from their adversaries.
that, however, the evidence had rather
tended to prove that Mrs. Gregory was
not partner of the firm and that the
non-suit would be granted
The case against Frank Gregory as
executor of the estate of Mary E. Gre.
CORY, deceased, having thus been dis
posed Of that against Frank Gregory.
representing the firm of Gregory Bros.
Company was taken up.
Attorney Bruner, for the defense. of.
fered the judgment roll in the case OF
] Mary A. Lee against the firm of
Gregory Bros. Company, and rested his
I case on that showing.
In rebuttal, Mr.. SCHNEIDER was placed
on the stand by plaintiff, and questions
j We're asked him concerning the sol
lVency or financial condition of the firm
/ in and during the years 1928 and
/ 1894.
! In answer to question by the Court.
| Mr.. Bruner said he considered the
plaintiff to be bound by her sworn
statement made in the former case. m
which she charged Eugene J. Gregory
| with having made to her the alleged
false representations with a view to
fraudulently secure a loan from ner
Judge Hinkson said the prosecution
expected to show that any judgmen,
roll of former case could not be bind
ing upon the action on trial.
Mr.. SCHNEIDER testified that in August
1874 the books of the firm showed II
to be solvent. In the books, however.
all credits which were not outlawed
were entered up, and he at that time
mad no means of knowing whether all
were good or not. AS a matter OF
fact, he said, many credits were worth
less, more than a hundred, but he could
not recoilect how much they repre-
sented.
g. A. Capen, Superintendent of the
Bradstreet Company in this city. was
called. He informed the court that his
company instructed it's Superintend-
ents to decline to testify as to the sol
Vency or insolvency of a firm, unless
by direct order of the court. That rule
was observed because Bradstreet's Sc
cured their information from confiden
tial sources.
The court entered up an order re-
curing the witness to answer CUES
tions relative to the condition of the
nrm OF Gregory Brothers Company in