Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1922-05-06
EIDE|V|tS I
Twas DER ALLY
NJ Wilson Declares Con.
eWs Were In Capacity
- Attorney Only
RlLLEo IN New YORK

kllLED IN New Y0Rk
,,t,4 1!te 70 show that r. warins vii.
u uIlAdelphiA attorney. was closely
144 with Elmorc d. Dier. head o.
Il veeAefaSe hrm Of r. n. Dier 4
\ ~ afked the hearing yesterday ir
ce Of Seaman Miller, referee
N Rector street, New York. Fol-
~ than an hour Mr.. Wilson with
,ts the rapid fire Of questions di
|S es him BY Saul 8. Myers, counsel
Y onfred w. Enrich. trustee In
Wllson admitted that since Sep
& Of 1915 he had attended to the
4 a6airs Of Dier. together with
~ William A. Carr. also Of this
4S4V he declared, however. that all
~ Soalings with the dcfunct broker
- Zen as attorney only that he had
0eos Nve trips to Mexico for Dier,
$yoe 0f them with the proprietor of
~ Brokerage house. and that he had
oS4ed him in the formation Of several
I oo1pofations.
That he was the representative Of
Nes ID the hrm Of Carpendcr. Caffry
4 Co.. New York brokers. with whom
H. Dier firm did large business, he
ivfetrously denied. Mr.. Wilson. the
stcptlmony developed. had procured a
o4o.nalf interest in the firm Of Car.
3p4o4ef & Caffry for the sum of $50.
CD, which he got indirectly through
Dad you get the money for your
lembership In the carpenter -Caffry
efm from Dier?" he was asked by
Loan Charges S:5OO
No. was the reply. From Levy
u Co." Further questioning brought
eaS the fact that Wilson had met Levy
~ CO. through the instance Of Dicr
- that the chnrses for the loan had
b9en $25O0. Thn money for the pay.
mat OF the loan was later lent to
Wlleon BY DER.
Wilson admitted that he had heard in
t1e last week that part Of the charges
q 425W had been paid by Carpenter,
CAaty 4 Co.
1sn't It a fact that part Of the
chet1es were paid by Dier 4 Co.
en4 the other half By carpenter 4
CAfyT was the next question from
THAT Ia not so." snapped Wilson.
Isn't 1t a fact that you were n rep
Secentative for Dier in that firm? -
1T Is not replied Wilson with
II make tbc claim that you were
Oier's dummy. You deny it:''
II do. There was never any such
Agreement. Asked as to the employ
nent Of a certain man as accountant.
Wilo0n denied that he was placed in
IT, Carpenter Caffry office to watch
~ Oter interests there.
Wasn't he really there as a watch.
d1gr asked Myers.
Hcr me, yes" was the reply.
Well. you and Dicr were the same,
~. t's w.re n1'I not' "FssS e1,e% Mysy;i wilson 1
Aase testified that several times al
Dsnies He Gave der Note
~ sappose you gave D,er your note
~ ia not replied Wilson. He saId
tAAt he had paid $40, 900 TO Dier by
ofton November 70. 1921. and that
0ke uaiance had been waived by the
lettee In lieu Of services rendered since
8Gptsmh0r. 1915. for which Wilson had
1eveH received compensation.
STARTLING testimony was offered by b,
u. HtiS. q certified public accountant
n the employ Of Manfred Enrich. It
y4A stnferred from his stigation of
- ttoks Of E. d. Dier & Co. that
.A1t1k the start of 1921 bucket shop
24e000s were the ones employed in the
OeeS concern, and that % per cent of
ell he orders of the firm were buck
Sted IN the good old fashioned way"
The testimony went further to show
that many of the orders were nullifed,
a1d Aqllihcation was the fate Of virtu.
4uy every order that went through
Cafpenter & Caffry.
tina acrOt infant ,oscrihod tba tn.o
1Aln accounts carried by f.. u. DER &
%. with Carpenter. Caffry & Co..
koew9 By number as the 200" account
cd he 1900" account. The former,
~ I'D. was at one time in the name
It Hughes 4 DER; that the latter was
Seene4 May. 10. 1921. After August
3, 1921, he declared, the 200" account
w1e used entirely for notification
Joseph ". Spencer, attorney for
Carpenter, Caffry & Co.. objected to
~ deductions of the accountant.
Calls Inferences Extreme
~ think the differences he draws are
'Aest extreme. said Mr.. Spencer. He
Il 6bed leave to cross examine. but put
~ . few questions to Refs.
Arthur G. Hays. counsel for the
btec. continued his quizzing of Refs.
Gho 100" account had any equity In
4 1t the time of the opening Of the
sNno0' account, Refs replied that on
thSN eontrary the former was consid.
erably underwatered that had it been
lltuilated at that time there would
h6Se been O sum in the neighborhood
~ eo1 900 coming to Carpenter, Caffry
9 Co.
Later he said that the books
shoWed that when carpenter. Caffry L
,C6. asked Dier & Co. to withdraw the
aotoUnt der & Co. by a series of
1ronsactions eliminated most Of the
m1oo In the 1000 one by nuliifica.
t5on transactions.
Heis said that n final statement from
Ch1oender, Caffry & Co. would most
l1k1Zy show that +. ID. der 4 Co.
Vl1nS under water in their account to
~. intent of about $74 900.
Further efforts OF Myers, counsel
~ the trustee. to identify Mr.. Wilson
61eA closely with bier ami to estab-
NSk connection between his personal
rVIationship with DER and his half in
meobt In the firm Of Carpenter Caffry
u O., only succeeded in irritating Mr..
~ believed he had great deal Of
2@k1y," said Wilson. "He held out