The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1907-05-15
SUES THE
BROKER FIRM
New Turn in Fonville
Case.
CIVIL LITIGATION BEGINS
Bank Would Recover Money Lost
by Teller.
Files Act In County Court mt Charlotte
Against Randolph & Co., Wire
House Represented by
AIabamian

Charlotte. N. c.. May 14.--(SpeciaL)-
The latest development In connection
with the embezzlement of $73.oUo of the
Charlotte National Backs money. with
which former teller Frank Jones of
this city and Percy Fonville of Luverne.
Ala. ARE charged, occurred today when
1t was learned that the bank had is
sued several summons against Ran
dolph Company, a bucket shop firm, who
were formerly represented In this sec
tion by Fonville.
The complaint has not been filed but
II Is stated that the sum asked for is
between $4,000 and 10000. Oficials
of the bank refuse to make state
ment on the situation. It is learned
that a counter claim may be filed
against the bank by Randolph Company
for like amount.
This Is the most sensational turn af-
fairs have taken since the voluntary
surrender of Jones Saturday. 1t may
necessitate that Jones and FonvilIe
testify in court against each other the
former for Randolph and the latter for
the bank, in which event things never
known to the public may leak out.
The summons are made returnable at
the June term OF court OF this county.
Both Jones and Fonville are under
$4,000 bond each for their appearance
then. The latter left the city a few
days ago for his home in Alabama. He
has retained Congressman Wiley of
Alabama. Stewart & McRae and Tillett
& Guthrie to represent him in the trial,
in which he Is charged with conspiracy
with Jones in robbing the bank.
1t is not known what the bank will
allege in its complaint but the pre-
sumption is that through operations
of Randolph's agent. Fonvil1e. whose
transactions are alleged to show that
fictitious credits were entered for
which no money came in. On the
other hand Randolph will likely claim
that the entries were legal and that
they received no credit for same. This
will put the burden of proof on Jones
while the other will place 1t on Fon-
Vile. Fonville represented at one
time in this city Randolph Company.
He afterward moved across the line
on aceoant of State laws. to Fort Mill,
s. c.. operating there when Jones es-
capped.
Rumors have been afioat here some
time that others beside Fonvi1le are
implicated In the affair. Speculation
brought about the entire trouble and
the litigation involving the recovery
of money from Randolph Is expected
to bring to light the fall particulars.
President Heath of the bank gives
color to the situation in a statement
made upon the arrival of Fonville
that he was the man wanted and not
Jones.
The matter Is becoming more and
more intricate. 1t may result In mere
struggle between Jones and Fonville
when the civil action is brought to
court. because the bank depends on the
former and the brokerage firm on the
latter to decide the issue involved.
The fact that Jones was released on
the same bond as Fonville. is being
talked of now as being because the
bank needs his testimony in the COM
ing litigation. The civil suit will be
heard in the courts of the county and
the trial of Jones and F'onville in the
federal court. the former convening
June 3, the latter June TO-