The New York herald., 1922-05-16

personel account opened in Novem oef
1920. with the firm with check for
$4,000 made out 10 Hughes. The wit
ness could not remember whether this
was Hughes & Dier check or not.
There was a second credit of $4,000 on
March 21, 1921. when more margins
were called for, but he could not remem-
Der whose check wcs given.
The ledger sheets gearing the account
were marked in evidence. but were not
admitted as an exhibit. pending a court
decision on an objection made by
Walter b. Gibbons of 141e South Penn
Square. OF counsel for the Bell com
pany. Hayes questioned Mickey fur
thcr
Was any money transferred from the
Dier & Co. account to Hughes's account
after Dier & Co. had taken over the
business?
Il believe i was"
The record showed that $4,000 had
been transferred the next day. May 20.
'On whose instructions was that
done?"
"Col. Hughes's."
Dier Balance Once S241,042.
1t was brought out. as indicating
the amount Of business that Dier & Co.
'relayed' through Philadelphia. that
when the change in the firm was made
Dier's debit balance with Bell & Co. was
S241,542
Regarding E. D. Dier's personal ac-
count. the witness testified that this
only involved one tra1saction-a loan of
approximately $1,000 or about $40 900
worth of American Railways National
Gas per cent. bonds These were
shifted from Diers own account to the
DER * Co. account and then. on Dier s
objection, were transferred back again.
The amount of the loan was reduced
by interest payments 20 about $4,000
and on December ~ last. two weeks be-
fore the failure. B,,l & Co.. so Mr.
Hickey testified. were instructed my Dier
to charge the $4,000 to the DER & Co.
account and to turn over the bonds to
the Philadelphia manager for Dier &
Co James Reilly. This was done. he
said. and a receipt taken from Reilly
which showed the numbers of the bonds
The witness could not remember whether
Reilly bad s'gne1 tn, receipt as repre-
seuting DER personally or the firm, but
said he would produce the receipt.
Fifth Account I'm August.
Besides the four accounts mentioned
those of Hughes & Dier, Col. Hughes
Dier & Co and E. d. Dier, Bell & Co
also carried an account in the nams
CT Dier, Lawrence & Starr. This ac
count was only opened last August, but
the witness had not connected the ac
count with the new Stock Exchange
rule, adopted in August. prohibiting
brokerage firms going short of theil
customers stocks. He was asked:
"Isnt 1t fact that they used tn,
Dier. Lawrence & Starr account to sci
stocks bought in the name Of DER
Coz"
"No: they did not"
Didn't you know that the Dier. Law
renee & Starr account was. in fact. q
| notification account
NO"
The witness said Bell & Co. had ono,
asked Hughes and Dier for a state
ment OF their financial position. but hat
been content with an assurance thai
everything was "all right" Dier & Co
had never been asked for such a state
ment. II thought they were rich" said
the witness.
Bell & Co., however. asked Dier & Co.
to withdraw its business and close the
account last October. This was done. he
said because Dier & Co. had moved
their business to New York and ''the
isfactorily. In addition. what with the
DER. Lawrence & Starr account things
were always getting mixed"
Mr. Hickey insisted that II had never
dawned" on him that Dier Co. were
selling customers securities. He said
'If we had known that we would have
called them and stopped II. We were
carrying out every order they placed
with US. and the exchange knew we had
relations with them. We did not know
that Hughes had been expelled from the
Philadelphia Exchange for bucketing
because the exchange never made known
the reason for it's action"
The hearing Is to be continued here
on Thursday. beginning at IL 1o'clock,
and q complete examination OF Bell &
Co.'S books relating to the Dier business
Is practically certain. lasting many
weeks.