The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1922-06-10
IYSTERY IN PAYMENT
Brokerage Got Back $780,
900 From Former Cashier
on 100000 Paper.
Re STILL CLAIMS $4,000
Whole Matter Explained to
Shrimpton, Is Contention
of Witness.

of Witness.
The ease with which securities in
ne keeping of T.. d. DER & Co. dis
ppeared and the extraordinary way
\ which the firm seemed to get the
worst of it in many loan dealings were
.one into yesterday at the bankruptcy
roceedings before Seaman Miller as
"eferee at Rector street.
The witnesses were Fred Andrews,
nee cashier for Hughes & DER and
'>ier & Co. and his son-in-law. August
stroh. 1t was these two. with Per-
ard Andrews, son of Fred Andrews.
Tho were in the Gage" in the DER
ftices and hence had free access at
4 times to the firms securities
red Andrews, according to previous
;ostimony. left the DER firm last June.
II appeared from some of the ques-
ons asked Of Andrews. however. that
lille he left the employ of the firm
hieh had given him wealth he con-
nued to carry on a profitable bust
less by it's aid.
Handled S1,I23,OOo Leans.
The accountants records show that
ndrews. out of the firm. handled
/ $4,000 in loans for DER, that this
i,an business and the collateral in
rclved were sent him by his son and
on-in-la law, and that there had been no
counting by Andrews at the time of
he DER failure. though two sheets of
PAPER. purporting to set forth the prices
1T which the collateral had been sold
by Andrews. was Forthcoming a few
days later.
Andrews testified that his arrange
r1ent with DER after he gave up his
~agular job called for the payment to
him of full commission on all sales he
made and of per cent. interest on
loans A typical instance OF what
ometimes happened with reference to
hese loans relates to a matter gone
'nto at several hearings but not yet
fully explained.
DER had two loans from the Sea-
board National Bank, each of $4,000.
He posted securities worth about $780,
600 against these. In December An
drews took over these securities and
gave Dior check for 100000. The
bscfter 4 DER & Co. shows the re-
celpts % the 100000. but shows nothing
-essardlns the securities tr
saows 100000 Missing.
According to the accountant Andrews
SOLD rfa securities. but just what be-
rne actly of the difference between
the amount of the loan and the worth
OF the securities has not been brought
out. The DER books in the middle OF
january, a month later. indicate that
the same securities were sold TO a
-. or L." Laurence for exactly $780,
90. and both the lawyers and the ac-
countant refer to this as Fictitious"
entry. The books were in charge OF
Andrews's son-in-law, Stroll
There was another case in which the
amount of the loan was $4,000 and
the worth of the securities 1881 900.
Andrews admitted he had never made
an accounting in the proper sense of the
term, but said he had gone into de-
tails with Shrimpton. the manager for
DER. on all these transactions. He
added:
81 figure that DER & Co. owe me
something like s25.oco or $4,000.
Unconccrncd About 30.
Andrews became indignant a moment
later when the accountants report
showed that on January he had sold
900 Liberty 4 per cent. bonds at a re-
ported price of %. while the market
price on that day was 81.
That's a difference of only So" he
said
Eyes. in this transaction. but the
same thing Is true OF many others"
said William Abramson. who was ex-
amining.
Andrews said he sold all securities
through J. j. Delaney and kept no
books of his own. although he had
bought n membership in the Consoli-
dated Exchange. He produced six of
his check books. and said he had left
the balance in the court room in the
Post office Building et one of the early
hearings. and supposed they were In
the receivers hands. He seemed en-
tirely unconcerned at the apparent mis-
laying OF these books. which the re-
ceiver considers important. He said
they would merely corroborate the DER
entries on his transactions. and offered
TO put his own accountant TO work
with the receivers accountant. This
offer was accepted.
Stroh. under examination, explained
the duties of the various Dier employees
who had access TO the cage. the vari-
GUS books he kept and the manner in
which securities were handled. He in
sisted that II securities came to him
marked to be held for the customer
they did not go into loans. A box
book was kept. which should have
shown the securities actually in the box.
but no check had been made to show
IL the record was accurate and the
securities listed actually in the box
for months before the failure.
son-in-Lnw Bnzy About Sale.
When he was questioned about the
Seaboard loan. Stroh appeared 70 be
quite hazy lie had understood that
Andrews was to attend to g.; he
couldn't say whether he gave An
drews the securities. He did remem-
Der the check for 10000.
''well. did you give the securities TO
Andrews; yes or nor"
II believe did. but 7 will not answer
yes or no."
Don't you know that Andrews sold
these securities personality"
mo. don't know IT,"
An adjournment was taken until June
Is at p. NJ so that the accountants
can check up certain statements OF
Andrews and also to enable Andrews
to get data on the exact amounts he
received In presents from other brokers.