New-York tribune., 1922-08-04
Brokers Denied
w WTrit to Silence
Their Accllser
l,uscheon, Nash & Co. Asked
Injunction Restraining G.
n. Nichols From Declar-
ing They Bucketed Orders
firm Charges Extortion
Former Partner Says Mem.
bers Spoke of Themselves
rs The Three Buckcteers'

The stock brokerage frm Of Gutch-
\, Nash G. Co., of West Fortieth
street., vas unsuccessful in the su-
,-en,e Court yesterday in its effort to
ah4ain all injunction restraining
George r. Nichols. q former partner,
trem issuing alleged libelous state
usnts about the firm. Justice Finch
senied the application for an injunc
diam saving that if the statements of
slr. Nichols we're true then a crime
saS been committed.
The members OF the firm arc Emil d.
cuteheon. Robert E. Nash and Jerome
a. Gould, and in the course of an
.eaavit by Nj Nichols he says these
,rsn sometimes referred to themselves
as the "Three Bucketeers." Re charged
them with appropriating the funds of
customers and also quoted the brokers
a. saving that they expected to "clean
10 100000" 1t was because of the
bueketing and the alleged wrongful
rse of customers funds. said Mr..
Nichols, that he withdrew from the
finn.
i was charged by Gutcheon, Nash G.
Co. that his threats to expose them
was form Of extortion on his part to
induce the firm to relax in their efforts
70 collect $4,000 which they alleged
Nichols wrongfuily obtained from the
firm.
Denying the allegations, Mr.. Nichols
said that the members of the brm be-
came panic stricken when he withdrew
from the partnership and, fearing the
disclosures that he might make regard
Ing their business activities. they
threatened to accuse him unless he
promised not to make the disclosures.
As TO the $4,000, Mr.. Nichols said the
plaintiffs agreed to pay him that for
his share of the business and for his
work.
@The fear of the law and of disaster
took hold of them said Mr.. Nichols,
because they feared their wholesale
thievery would come to light through
the divulging by me of facts, inasmuch
as had quite heated argument with
them concerning their activities ana
the way my customers had been treated
and their confidence abused, and | had
said felt morally under obligations to
nform them" Mr. Nichols charged that
his former partners Withdrew from the
banks money belonging to the;r Gus
toners by means of checks made pay
able to fictitious customers, and that
these checks were DESTROYED upon
being returned from tho bank.
That Gutcheon, Nash & Co. con-
Quoted 'the worst type OF bucketshop"
was one of the charges made by Mr..
Nichols. He said they failed to exc
cute buying asorderss although they
would send customers combinations
and acceptances. 1t is alleged that
the brokers' would ostensibly execute
tae order of customer to buy by buy
ing the stock from one of two fictitious
accounts kept on their books in the
names Of A. Joffe and M. Ostrow.
Justice Finch, in denying the injurc-
tion requested by Gutcheon, Nash &
Co., said he did so because an injunc-
ton restraining one from committing
what might be held to libel another
might restrain the freedom of the
press. 1t had been held, said the JUS
tice, that one might prosecute for libel
rather than restrain beforehand by
legal process. AS to the claim that
Mr.. Nichols should be enjoined from
revealing information obtained while
be occupied a confidential position with
the firm, Justice Finch said the plain
tits did not show that they came into
court Of equity with clean hands.