New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-11-19

tcrdav. amounting 20 $l,e6o,S2e OF, he
found similar discrepancy for the
Simpson-C rawford store Of S2,4o2'-
24682. These discrepancies, he ex-
planned carefully. were computed by
taking overstated assets and under
stated liabilities together These were
for February I, 1918 ,,.,.
Another credit statement for the l4th
81. store. dated February 3, lslI' re-
vcalcd total discrepancies amounting
70 81. 4S7.242 so, while IN the statement
of the Boston store for January 81
1918. the discrepancies were m tota'
S2.S1S.SS2
A. Mr.. Flint started to plunge into
.tbcsc deductions and TO follow them
by "a Aood OF others, the SieCel law.
vcrs were on their feet, fighting hard
ar9inst the admission OF the tesu-
n,ouv on the ground that n was irrele,
want. incompetent. immaterial and all
the other kinds Of "imms IN law
ycr's vocabulary.
But the Judge said he proposed. to
let the jury have all the facts and that
the same hherality would be EXTENDED
TO the defence when II comes to put
ting m its case. ,,,
Under direct examination Nh. Fhnt
said that there were undiscloscd as
sets of the Boston store.
This was in the form Of debts owed
IL by the other Siogel enterprises oil
Sl.0lO.16092.
III taken at their face value and in
Guided as assets. what would be the
condition Of the store ~ Mr.. Tram
asked.
"That would reduce the overstate-
mcnt of S2,452 .246 30. as ! have gwen
II. 20 Sl.l2S.56l a. replied MIR. Flint
"Hal Why didn't you put IN your
charts these undisclosed assets as well
as the undisciosed liabilities .: shouted
Mr.. Lowell
Because as assets they weren't
worth a red cent snapped back Mr..
Train.
When Mr.. Lowell took the witness in
hand for cross examination he made
much Of this non-inclusion of undls-
closed assets i'm the evidence charts,
showing that there were such assets IN
the instance Of every store lie didn't
stop at this i'm his efforts TO wipe out
these impressive discrepancies, but
drew from the witness many other
classes of items which he indicated he
thought Mr.. Flint should have included
as assets, but had not.
lie also tried to get Mr.. Flint TO ad-
init that in the inventories OF the
stores the merchandise VS. returned
at cost, while The credit statement as
sessed it at the selling price. or an ad-
vance of about 80 per cent II true this
would wipe out the discrepancies as TO
merchandise entirely.
MI Flint, however, said the bona
fde inventories were based not on cost
price. but on selling price, so that n $
method would not avail TO reduce the
overstatemeutS
As an example of the uncertainty as
to who was getting the best of u Mr..
Flint had next 20 admit that he was
only informed the inventories we're
based on selling price, but did not
know of his own knowledge
This is q fact that will have 20 be
cleared up boy future witnesses.
Getting List of Assets.
The last hour of the session Mr..
Lowell consumed IN drawing from Mr..
= mt admissions that horses, wagons,
elevated bridge TO the Fourteenth
Street Store lunch counter, good VII.
discount suspense and a hundred other
items. all followed by amounts ranging
from SIS 10 100000, were not included
In his casting Up Of assets for the varl-
Gus stores.
"Why didn't YOU include these" Mr.
Lowell asked triumphantly.
because ] didn't consider myself
under any obligations to do So" Mr.
Flint said And this cryptic answer
left the question i'm still greater doubt
as to whether the final break would be
for or against the defence when the
full explanation is developed.
The prosecution said, after court ad-
journed. that 1t will be shown that all
these assets not listed TO the defend
ants credit were merely mythical as
sets. entered in the ledgers at Siegels
direction for the purpose Of concealing
the real state Of affairs.