The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-07-19
THOMAS A, CLEAGE
HAS NO COMPANY.
Spectator Admits His Commits
aion Concern Has No Corporate
Existence.
DISPOSITIONS IN GRAIN SUIT.
Memory Fails Cleage When He Is
Asked About What Hap
pened to Money of His Gil
ents in Especial Pool"
DISPOSITIONS IN GRAIN SUIT.

The Cleage Commission Company. of which
20 much has recently been heard and with
which persons in many sections of the coun-
tzy have placed money for investment. has
no corporate existence.
Thomas A. Cleage admitted this fact yes
terday in his deposition in the case against
The action Is TO recover certain funds
which the plaintiff alleges to have deposited
with Clesge for investment in grain.
Frederick W. Lehman, in cross-examin-
ing Mr.. Cleage, asked the question:
do you know tho Cleage Commission
Company
Yes, SIR" was the answer.
What is your relation to that company"
asked Mr.. Lehman.
We'll, am the Cleage Commission
Company. 1t Is not stock company nor
q partnership.
Then there is no such company or cor
poration as the Cleage Commission Com
pany7"
Tho, there is not" replied Mr.. Cleage.
'It means. then" said Mr.. Lehman.
that you have been holding yourself out
to the public, with whom you have dealt.
as the Cisaee Commission Company, but in
fact you have been doing business as an
indivieualr'
To this question Mr.. Ceage replied that
his customers all knew that there was no
company and that Thomas A Cleage was
the owner Of the Clease Commission Com
pauy. He admitted never having informed
his customers that no company existed,
either by circular or letter.
"sPECIAL POOL FUNDS.
The oross-questioning developed that q
portion Of the plaintiffs money had been
placed in what was known as g special
pool" The pool was special because it diff
fered from other pools. The trading was
done the 10 per cent basis; that is, 10 per
cent OF the clients money was used to make
purchase or sale Of grain. II the opera
tors judgment was bad. another 10 per cent
could be used at another time, and so on
until much profit was made or the original
investment had dwindled to noth!nsness.
BY an elaborate and intricate series Of
questions Mr.. Lehman tried to learn from
Mr.. Cleage Just what had happened to the
money Of his client If was difficult to get
at the meat OF the facts because Mr..
Cleage's memory failed him at times and
his books were not at hand.
Re admitted that even were the ledger
there it would not show whether the grain
was bought or sold. who did the buying or
selling for him, or whether the buying or
selling was done on the Chicago or St Louis
exchange. It developed that the pool bought
for December delivery, 1902, and that later
this was carried forward into the May deal.
You were operating In wheat recently?"
asked Mr.. Lehman.
Mr.. Cleage admitted that this was the
csse.
And it is reported that wheat advanced
greatly above the price you paid for it, and
that you made settlement with Ogden Ar
nour at a great profit. Was that profit for
customersy"
Mr.. Houts, the attorney for the defendant.
objected to this question on the ground that
It had nothing to do with the case.
IT don't know whether It has or not re-
piled Mr.. Lehman. There is no reason
which precludes the idea of a subsequent
transfer from May to July"
Mr.. Cleage stated that in the operations
of the pool when wheat was bought puts
were also purchased. and whenever wheat
was sold ''oalls" were bought This to limit
the loss