Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1922-05-10
THREATEN SUIT.
FOR ST0NEHAM
Dier Creditors May Take Court
Action for $2,4oo, 900 A.
legged to Be Due
WARNED AGAINST ACTION

! NHHTleh N. CtVUcHuu o"'' 49,
creditors Of r. y. Dicr 4 Co. S2.4OO,-
600. and am going to make him pay
in full II have to drag him into United
States Court to disgorge." declared ID.
w. Blumenthal, attorney representing
creditors Of the defunct Dler concern.
Blumenthal was emphatic today In his
declaration that Stoncham not only was
n silent and very much interested part
ncr in the Dier company. but also
charges that he had inside information
of the insolvency Of tho company Mt the
time Stoneham bought back securities
valued nt SO. 4OO.O 900. However. Arthur
q. Hays. attorney representing the re.
ccivers, does not hold out any such hope
of recovery.
Mr.. Hays said hc understands that
the customers interest In these securi.
ties amounted to about $500. 900 and
that Stoneham owned the balance out
right and, Furthermore, Mr.. Hays is not
anxious to enter into litigation to re-
cover. taking the stand that the return
Of 5000. 900 by Stoneham voluntarily
would be Of more interest to the cred
itors than Il court bnttlc That may end
in loss Of everything.
Stoneham's part IN the der failure
was the principal topic at the herring
before Referee in Bankruptcy Seaman
Miller, at No. = Rector street. New
York. yesterday. Everyone seemed to
be bent on trying 10 show Stoncham' &
actual connection with the defunct firm.
Siles T.. Dubbel. formerly manager Of
the DER branch house in Hagerstown,
Nd, was sure that William II. STRAIT
ton, supervisor Of branch Offices for
DER, had told him that Stoneham put
money into the DER Company and had
assumed n silent partnership.
That was denied by Stratton. who
declared that he had never told Mr..
Dubbcl or anyone else. that Stoncham
was a partner. although he admitted he
had told Dubbcl that he understood
DER was abundantly supplied with
funds. and that the firm had withstood
a run of 81 900. 900 at the time Colonel
Henry d. Hughes was expelled from
the Philadelphia Stock Exchange.
Denied Stoneham Connection
Leo ]. Bondy, Stonchams counsel.
was also witness before the referee.
Pondy's testimony sought to show that
Stoncham had absolutely nothing to do
with the DER Company. and that the
taking over of the Stoncham customers
by DER was plain business transac-
ton.
Mr.. Bondy related the difficulty
that Stoncham experienced having Dicr
his agreement to take over
the business. He declared that Stone
with court action and also that Stone
ham was compelled to remain In bust
ness five months longer than he wished
because Of the laxity on the part of
Dier to take over the business. Mr..
Bondy also admitted that Stoneham
retained possession of securities valued
Mt $500. 900 until Dicr made good and
that Stoneham had received about
sob 900 in dividends from the retained
which should have gone to the
owning them.
There is NOT one word Of truth in
the statement that Charles A. Stone
ham is or was in any way connected
with the firm Of +. d. Dier & Co.."
declared Bondy. Mr.. Stoncham
merely sold his good will to Dier for
800. 900, and pending payment for Sc.
rurities to be turned over with the bust.
ness. he held on to these securities until
bier made good"
Dubbel said he started at S7j week
as the manager of Dier's Hngerstown
Office and was raised TO $50. II couldn't
get delivery of stocks bought by my GUS
he told the referee, 'and |
was also in doubt after Colonel Hughes
was expelled from the exchange. |
sent a letter to the firm asking assur-
ances that they were .. Il. because my
customers were punicky. and in re-
sponse to my letter William II. STRAIT
ton, representing Dicr. came to Hagcrs-
town and not only told me that Stone.
ham had joined the Dier firm and put
in lot Of money, but he also told the
same thing to my customers
Brands Statement False
Stratton, who is man of about
sixty, told Dubbel he had never said
such thing and characterized such an
assertion as absurd because he had no
reason to know Of such happening.
Sure. | went to HagcrStown and |.
talked to Mr.. Dubbel.' admitted STRAIT !
ton to the referee. II went there in /
response to HIS letter asking for assur.
lnces as to the stability Of DER 4 Co. !
II simply conveyed to Dubbel the in.
that was given me by Doc |
DER. ! told him | had every reason
10 believe DER & Go. were strong |
and that Dubbel, like the !
others, should believe In the integrity |
of the firm OF course, had been as
Dured Of the firms stability, and | also |
knew that the firm had successfully |,
withstood II run Of 81 900 ,OOO fol- |
lowing the expulsion Of Hughes from the |
exchange. ] never told Dubbcl or any !
one else that Stoucham was silent |
partner, because ] never knew he was. |
My business as supervisor Of the branch |!
Offices was to open them and engage
managers. ] was not acquainted with |
the actual financial conditions of the |
firm simply conveyed information
as it was given to me by my superiors."
Stratton, who said he started with
hughes & der about four years ago
at salary Of S125 week and had
been receiving $3.50 week at the time
of the crash. also told the referee he
was confident Dier would weather the
storm because his supervisors had told
him that Dicr was about to raise $500
600 to avert the failure.
Stratton also said he had gone to New
\ lork to Inquire as to the delay in de-
livery Of stock and had been told by the
cashier that the securities had been put
up with banks as collateral for loans
and As fast as money came i'm they
would be redeemed and forwarded to the
customers. Stratton also admitted that
the Friday before the failure he had, |
at the request Of the employees OF the
Philadelphia office. engaged an attorney
L..