The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-11-19
SWEARS HE SAW
S!EGEL ALTER
HIS INVENTORY
Boston Secretary Identifies
Merchants Signature
on Statement.
EXPERT TELLS ABOUT
HUGE DISCREPANCIES


plain away in cross-examinatlon an
alleged discrepancy in the financial state |
ments of three of the Siegel stores amount |
ing to upward of s6.50O.OO0 which was
piled up by the state through the testi- |
mony of John Flint. the expert accountant |
who examined the books of the Siege !
enterprises for the receivers and for As |
sistant District Attorney Arthur Train.
This task was undertaken by Ross NJ. |
Lowell, associate counsel with John Il
Stanchfed. about an hour before court |
adjourned for the day II was soon after !
Joseph T.. Pridday, secretary Of the Henry |
Siegel Company OF Boston, had Identified !
an Inventory sheet Of that concern for the |
year ended January ~. 1913. on which he
said he saw Siegel himself mark up or |
Jump sixteen departments 100000. lie
also identified Segels signature to that |
years inventory statement showing mer-
chandise amounting to sl30,i99lS more
than was shown in the original inventory
Friday pointed out In the books Of the |
Boston store thirteen pages of the private |
ledger on which he recognized inaccuracies
In the accounts. but the strongest state
ment he made for the prosecution was
that connecting Siegel for the first time |
with actual NEEDING with the inventory |
sheets.
Mr.. Lowell fought hard to show that |
eiegel had done only what any big de- |
partmeni store manager would do in ex- |
aiming his inventory: that as far as |
pridday knew Siegel never made an entry |
In any of the stores books or ordered one
made and that pridday when he went to |
New York reported to vogel and Oscar
A. Prall and not TO Siegel
statements Compared.
The discrepancy alleged by Mr.. Train !
through Flnts testimony appeared in his
comparison of the financial statements of /
the Fourteenth Street Store. the simpson
Crawford Company and she Henry Siegel |
Company of Boston for the fiscal year ended |
January 81, 1913, which were submitted TO
the National Bank of Commerce when
Siegel and Vogel wanted a loan OF $780,
600 for the Fourteenth Street Store early
In 1913. II Is FOR the alleged larceny from
this bank Of sss405-part OF the loan !
transac tion--that Siegel Is being tried.
The total of the discrepancy alleged was
1854 62l.S1. 1t was made up as follows
Overs:ated assets, sl,ll2.S21.56 under
stated liabilities s2.233950 "a, undis-
closed liabilities mot appearing on the
credit statements TO the banD. $685.
049Sl.
The following table indicates the way
the larger total is composed:
ovERsTArEp ASSETS.
Fourteenth Street store ........ S35s7SOlt
simpson crawford Company. 622,3722t
Henry Siegel Company tBostonJ 1870. 4ssls
Total Observation-Disclosures. N.ii2.s2l5s
UNDERsTATED LIABILITIES.
s%p.on crs sTss' ssss
Henry Siegcl Company tBostonl 7s,s3s73
Total Observation-Disclosures. ,?.?ss,s5O2 2.
UNDIsCLosED LIABILITIES
Fourteenth street store........ sl,OOs. $40 os
Simpson Crawford company ..... eOg.o75.O3
Aenry Siegel Company BOSTON, i,3is,5i47O
Total OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES. 50. 2Gs. 049Sl
The comparison OF the statements them
Selves as they Were submitted to the bank
as basis for loans 10 the Fourteenth
street Store and Fi!nts findings on the
stores books showed that the largest dis
crepancies were in the Items OF merchan-
disc accounts payable and the liabilities
of the individual stores TO the other Siegel
enterprises including the Siegel Stores
Corporation. According to Flint the debt
OF s65s, 200 of the Simpson Crawford store
TO the corporation was one of the con-
cealed liabilities on tine simpson era wford
Company's statement There was also a
concealed asset OF s23l63s6 in cash in
that statement the witness asserted
Line of Defence shown.
In the hour Mr.. Lowell had Flint in hand
the jury was enabled to see clearly the
line Of defence Siegel Is setting up against
the states allegations OF fraud. Earlier
I'm the day. however counsel for the de-
fence admitted frankly In objections to
Flnts testimony that Siegel was unpre-
pared to answer charges of Measurements
other than those mentioned in the indict-
ment charging him with the larceny OF
s6S4.O5.
His defence for the alleged discrepan-
Giles concerned in that specific charge is an
attempt 10 show that Flint left out OF his
charts comparing the credit statements and
and the actual condition of the stores
Items Of assets which when added TO his
findings even exceed the figures given by
siegel in his credit statements to the bank
Mr.. Lowell adduced from Flint the fact
that he had omitted from his chart such
Items as the fan account "sundry sup
plies many small outstanding accounts
and the other stores indebtedness to the
individual store whose books ne was ex-
aiming while ne included i'm that stores
liabilities its own Indebtedness to the other
Siegel enterprises. Many OF these Items
had been mentioned by Flint in Mr.
Trains direct examination and Flint had
characterized them as concealed losses"
worthless and mot worth red cent"
Prldday, whose testimony was more or
less or a surprise To the Siegel lawyers,
formerly was employed by Chapman &
Co. Brooklyn department store once
owned hv the Clafin chain which dis
solved about seven years ago. He and
Prall worked there for few years after
which he went 10 work for the Fourteenth
Street store and then was employed by
kiegel in Boston.
Flint was Withdrawn from the stand
when court convened this morning to per-
NIT employees of the National Bank of
Commerce to testify and get away
Bnni. Employees Testify.
Jacob Miller, sheo, man of the cortin-
cation department, was called to prove
that one of the -four s95, 900 notes OF the
100000 loan made Ia the Fourteenth
street store inatured and was cancelled
ON April ~, 1918, This was important.
for the state maintains that the older
transaction ended then and the new S25-
600 not" made that day was an independ-
cnt transaction, The defence asserts il
was all continuing, SO there could not
have been any larceny OF s6siO5, which
Is the offence charged against SieEei
Miller swo"e that two or three hours
interviewed be wecn I @ cancellins r tie
old note and the making OF "A new one
Mr.. Lowell ON Cross-eNamination brou ut !
out however that tn, piorc"ds Of the |
$4,000 not" discounted that day were no !
deposited until lse Ia the afternoon, 80
III. s6Niu1 drawn our To NE order
~ Austin, Nichols & Co on June Il
1913 mus, have come out of the balance |