The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-10-31

Judge Kelly was furnished with a
new definition Of "assets" yesterday
afternoon in the Sharood- Jordan trial.
Jasper B. Tarbox was under cross ex-'
animation, and G.. A. Severance, .attor-
ney for the defendants, Jordan, was
prodding him for information as to the
method by which, in April, 1900, he
had rolled up a total of assets amount
ing to $577,659 for the firm of TarboX,
Schliek & Co. and it's ally, the Union
Shoe company. The item under con-
sideration was the $4,000 note. given
to the Merchants National bank in
settlement of Tarbox and w. r. Mer-
RAMS unfortunate speculation with
state prison labor at Jeffersonville,
Ind s'.7
Now, Mr.. Tarbox," said counsel,
"just tell us all about this note-hoW
you got it into your list of assets -
well, that's the way 1 regarded it,"
the witness replied. -
But was it not an obligation of your
firm to the bank?"
why, yes, that's true, I guess, but
at the same time I regarded Merriam
as the real debtor on that note. 1t
was his liability, not ours, for Tarbox,
Schliek & Co. had never received any
consideration for making the note
The venerable judge by this time
was shaking with laughter, and the
court room was in an uproar. Hum
phrey Barton, counsel for Trustee
Sharood, attempted to come to the res
cue Of the witness, but the court
would have none of it.
why, gentlemen, this is very re-
markable bookkeeping" the judge re-
marked. IF a mans debts are to be
classed as assets, we shall have rev.
olution in the business world. We can
all go home with lighter hearts, know
ing that our notes in bank are value in
hand. This is truly a wonderful dis
covery.'' es'
Assets Deteriorate Rapidly.
The cross examination succeeded in
finding some weak spots in the story
Mr.. Tarbox told during his exarnina-
ton in chief. This was notably re-
garding the invoice made by the wit
ness of the firms property month be-
fore the partners were compelled to
admit their inability to meet their OBJ
legations. This inventory set out the
assets as follows:
Tarbox. Schliek & Co..... S305, $50. Is
Union Shoe and Leather Co. -. 271, 826. N
Total 1880. ............. $577, $50 AZ
A month later the invoice made with
Mr.. Tarbox's approval by L. M. Clark
and w. G. Jordan, for the purpose of
negotiating with the creditors and
procuring their consent to the sale of
the property to the Jordans, made this
showing:
Tarbox, schliek & Co.. :s113, 1854. 40
Union Shoe and Leather Co. >. 1o6,464 %
Total -. s229. ais 63
The discrepancy between the two
statements is made the basis of the
plaintiffs allegation that the assets
We're undervalued.
The defendants attack on this claim
was begun yesterday with the attempt
to show that the invoice made in April
was grossly inflated.
Goes Into Ancient History.
Mr.. Severance led the witness over
all the early history of his business
enterprises, questioned him about his
land speculations, his joint enterprise
with ex-Gov. Merriam at JeffersonviI1e,
and his little venture in silver mining
at Port Arthur, and finally brought up
at the financial crash that overwhelm-
ed his shoe making and mercantile es-
adjustments in the spring of 1900
Before the time for adjournment
was reached Mr.. Tarbox had admitted
that many of the items claSsed as as
sets of Tarbox, Schliek & Co. We're
practically uncollectible. There was.
for instance, the sum Of $4,000 charged
as debt owing to the firm by Mrs.
Tarbox, the witness wife.
When you made your inventory,
did you look ON that as a good asset?"
the witness was asked.
well, 1t was an overdrawn account.
l believe If We had gone on with the
business it would have been paid. OF
course it is not a good asset now"
And how about this $4,000 debited
I to ]. Z. Goodhue? He was a family
connection Of yours, I believe. Was
that item a valuable asset?"
1T has never been collected" pa
well, let us take this charge,
against the Lamphrey estate, another.
family matter. You took money out of
the till of Tarbox, Schliek & Co. and
used it to pay the taxes and assess
ments, didn't your"
Yes
And so the cross-examination CON
tinued, the witness admitting that a
considerable part of the claims held
by the firm, and set down among its
property, rested on bad debts. MANY
of these were family loans, like those
already cited. Finally Mr.. Tarbox
sought refuge from the inquisition in
the general statement that the ae-
count of $4,000 for bills receivable,
had been made out by his head book
keeper.
1T is time to quit for today" said
Judge Kelly.
Valuation Was Low.
AT the morning session of the court
Mr.. Tarbox was asked by Warren III.
Mead, attorney for the defendant H.
r. Lyon, concerning his interviews
with w. B. Jordan on the subject of
the May invoice
what was said between you as to
the real value of the assets as COM
pared with the invoice?"
We'll, I told him that it was very
low, that the assets were worth $780,
600 more, at least"
What was his reply?"
He said that it was all right, if we
could get the creditors to accept it.
l think made the same statement to
Kenneth Clark"
What was your relation to the
business after the Jordans- took pos
session of the plant and works at Still
water in July, 1902"
continued to exercise the same
supervision and control at Saltwater
as had always done when was pres
1dent OF the Union Shoe and Leather
company. The Jordans gave me no in
structions, and for some months they
did not interfere in the business at
aII".
"A new line or testimony was opened
when Mr.. Mead asked the witness to
tell of meeting at the Minnesota,
club in the spring Of 1901. This meet
Ing occurred after Mr.. Tarboxs had
been forced out of the business by the
declaration of the Jordans that they
had no contract of partnership with
him, and found themselves in no fur
Their need of his services.
l. Jordans' Offer to Sell.
Both of the Jordans were present, ..