New-York tribune., 1922-10-19
Deck ) Conduct
lin Loan Suit
Is Questioned
D. s. Solicitor Generals Sale
Of $4,000 Bond Collas~
s>ral for $435 Doubted
by Brokers' Attorney
till Has II, He Thinks
siven for SO, 6,O65 Loan That
Federal Official Seeks to
Recover Through Courts

James M. Beck, Solicitor General OF
sc United States, appears 80 plaintiff
i a Supreme Court action 10 coileci
rom George Goodson Moore. dealer IN
avestment securities, balance of
sg g.G6g alleged to be due on a note for
500 givef, by the defendant to secure
loan. Justice osMaliey granted peg
eission to Mr.. Moore yesterday TO ME
~ amended answer to the suit brought
~ SIR. Beck.
IN demanding the alleged balance eof
1905 its is alleged that Mr.. Moore
aid sfr. Beck $1,000 on account and
80 received s. credit Of $43o for cob
4erai. Since the complaint was yeFi-
sd, said counsel for :he defenoant'
aother $1,000 was repaid, making a
ntal os $500 repaid. The contre-
ersy now. however, has TO do wasn
* collateral given 70 secure repay
.ant OF the loan. This consisted OF
1000 In gold refunding bonds Of the
ewfoundland Pulp and Lumber Com
eay. William p McCool, counsel for
II. Moore, said that while these bonds
I'D no market In New YORK they had
Z, actual par value, and as for the
adit of sS35 given Mr. Moore on &c
amt of his loan, and based on Ihe
,1sno.ed sale of tine bonds, Mr. Nc
s5oi. in an affdsvit. said:
.sYonr deoonert is informed and be-
.es that this sum 1896 Is rtdicu-
s,sglv inadequate. Az the time the
,soirai answer was drawn, however,
AS assumed that the com pialnss
,rhfullv stated that the bonds NAG
en regula2ly sold, which would oTel.
riIy mean to q stranger-Ior tne
,n,niaint did not disclose anything 70
contrary. Negotiations were ths., -
tered into with the piaineih cooi'ss'
king to the liquidation OIL 'h's s
ant.s
Sale of Bonds Questioned !.
continuing his afidayit, Mr. MeCooi
4 tbat in the course of these pego-
siona lie assumed and wss not o.nst-
.s informed b, counsel for Nr. beck
81 me bonds put up as coiislefal nau
.sn sold to stranger sno iiao peen
strieyabIy lost, "and that there .@s
ains TO do but make the pes. .. "a q
j situation.' Mr.. Moore paio a1'ooo
lie the negotiations we're gong Oh
~ a stipulation waa reacheo soi ~
,yment of the balance on No'efh-
"a Sav or two later, however, saio
Mcrool. ..and before the stipulation
IA actually been signed. Information
!. az received from the defendant rais-
very strong inference that the
lintiff himself still held these bonds
!, j that he had not actually sold them
ALL" for
r.. Beck practically admitted that ms
. 'iant held the bonds, suggesting tnat
~. Moore pay the balance due on the
-.ote and the S435 credited to him on
5e supposed sale of the bonds, and
~ hack the bonds and tho note
ching came OF this proposal.
Defends fseck's Course
Admitting the assertion of coansei
II Mr.. Beck that the agreement under
aich the collateral vas turned over
Mr.. Beck would permit the solicitor
cneral to buy 1t in himself, Mr. Nc
col insisted that such purchase by
9e plaintiff Hould have to DC made at
a adequate price. ~.
Herbert G. Sunyth, counsel for MI
s,eck. who opposed the motion OF Mr.;
.toore to file an amended answer, stated
lat the defendant was not acting IN
.ood faith aud that Mr.. Beck had acted
'roperly throughout the entire proceed
ag. Ii MIR. Beck still held the col
steral, Mr. Smith argued, the defer--
ant could not demand 1t until he had
aid the entire amount OF the note.