OCR Text |
Show 1 r 11 ri: Vol 1, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, JULY No. 44. F&cts About B&iik Shortage. last weeks cash on hand. They did not appear on cash lists as Dooly's checks, but !Tbuth regarding the defalcations in the under the head of miscellaneous cash, Wells-Far& Co.s the local branch of currency, gold or silver. Some of these ibank created a tremendous sensation, checks are still in existence. This kind of went on for years and years, and foot only in Salt Lake and throughout in thing time Duke became treasurer of due MoI the state, but in Idaho. Wyoming, of education and, it is board the ntana and the intermountain country, accommodated Dooly out alleged, f The publisher did not anticipate that of same in the that fund as did out of he of would facts the funds cold few a of way narration the the Whether those consemunicipality. a as have made such a stir, and loans were fully repaid is not known. quence the supply of the papers fell far Some of them undoubtedly were. They 1 1 short of meeting the demand. Truths may all have been, but it is very doubtwere in such request on Saturday, Sun- ful. and at this late date and considerthe precautions taken to cover up day and Monday, that single copies were ing the tracks, it is questionable whether selling in the streets at from 50o to $1. even the most expert accountant could Unfortunately the type was thrown determine. ft ft in and a sufficient supply could not be furnished. The expressions of the paThis pretty well explains why Mr. per met with universal and enthusiastic Dooly was so desirous of having public approval, and Truth was very much The article published in go . commended for its fearlessness and honesty. The purport of the article was that the defalcations with which Assistant Cashier Duke and Teller Robertson stand charged could not have occurred without either the knowledge of Cashier Dooly or through his gross negligence and lack of ordinary business precaution, and that in either case Dooly was the cause of the downfall of Robertson, and possibly of Duke. ft Further facts which have come to the knowledge of Truth do not tend to relieve Mr. Dooly from the worst phase of the case. The crookedness began, or at least existed, away back in 1892, when Harry Duke was treasurer of Salt Lake City, and has continued ever since. Duke was assistant cashier of the bank when he was elected city treasurer. He used Wells-Farg- o & Co.s bank as the repository of the citys cash. At that time Mr. Doolys personal account at the bank was very much overdrawn, sometimes to the ex- V tent of $10,000 or $50,000 or even more. The local branch of the bank had to furnish periodical statements of its condition to the parent institution. Mr. reasons best known to himi? self, did not wish the balances on the wrong side of his account to appear so "e ,ln the statements sent to San p rancuco. As a means of reducing his overdraft, it is said on the very best h.e caused Duke, his subordi-- . Si, in the bank, to draw checks Doolys) favor on the citys fund !i! ?etiraea to the amount of $20,-nrm c amounts were credited to 8 account, thereby reducing his ..ea to further lighten ll it is said, frequently wrote liU . Ui own checks for as much as $40,- - riushod6 time, which were not Tel!p?,tUit simPiy handed to Paying who by Uooly'9 or-- i dera included the checks as part of the 7 -- Vi 5 Cents A ticular kind of graft. Dooly was administrator of the estate of Norton. Dukes slip or purported telegram and the assets was the Charles Duke, it is claimed, got the cash from Among Robertson. By the wonderful work-iug- s Dickens mine in Idaho. Dooly Bold the E. Dooly, made the entries on the books in accordance it is Baid, with of Mr. Dooly's system of seven times checking each entry the slip or purported telegram from which the bookkeeper made the entry came back to the hands of its maker, Duke, who, it is claimed, promptly destroyed it, thus obliterating all evidence except the bookkeeper's entry that anything had been drawn from the accounts of Mr. Hunt or Mr. Jones, or whatever the depositors name might be. None of those kind of entries are in the handwriting of either Duke or Robertson. How then can they be found guilty of making false entries on the books? Where is the proof that both of them or either of them got the money? All the evidence at present at hand is that the cash in the bank is $GO,(00 short. Duke, Robertson and Dooly bad access to the cash, which of them took it or did any of them take it? A burglar who had no connection with the bank, may have come in and stolen it. There is up to date no evidence which would prove that either of the two took it. They may all have bad a hand in it or none of them. One person, however, who knows if anybody does, says Dooly had most of it. He was never known to pass up anything which there was a fair chance of his getting away with. The actual evidence necessary to convict, however, is so slim against any of them that it is a question if a public prosecutor would bo justified in filing an information on it. In one sense there may be more merit in Dooly's system of accounts than at first sight appears. funds deposited in his bank. Dooly was largely interested in real estate deals and speculations of various kinds outside the business of the bank, and needed money to carry them on. With that state of affairs existing it is not surprising that Dooly did not cause the arrest of either Robertson or Duke after the defalcation became public. He daren't do it. What a relief it would have been to him if Robertson had only carried out his suicidal intent. He could have been made the scapegoat. With such an example set by their chief, it would not be a matter of much ft ft wonderment if Robertson and Duke did Towards the time the bank auditor a little funny business on their own came around Duke, it is said, had a account. ft ft scheme to furnish ready cash for a day Robertson and Duke are charged or two. He would go to some other with the crime of embezzling $60,000, bank and represent that his bank was funds of the bank. Before they can be short of bills of a certain denominaconvicted their accuser will have to tion, maybe $50 or $100 size, and in for $5,000 or $l(),ooo of curfurnish much more conclusive evidence exchange rency of the particular denomination of their guilt than he is at present in he would give his check as assistant & Co.s bank, posession of. Thanks to Mr. Doolys cashier of Wells-Farg- o of cash on balance the of excellent checking which toenabled system for out come the time hand right accounts, the evidence so far dis- being. And all this under the very covered is not sufficient to hang a dog. nose of Mr. Dooly and despite his exThe discoveries and allegations of De- cellent system of checking accounts. not Dooly was aware of the tective Thacker are that by the con- Whether or and participated in bringing shortage nivance of Robertson, assistant cashier it of the best lawyers in some about, Duke when he needed a little ready town are of the opinion he will have to cash, wrote on a slip of paper or pro- make it good on the ground of gross duced a pretended telegram that Wil- negligence. ft ft liam Hunt, John Jones or some other Cashier Doolys record in other ways depositor who had a goodly sum at his shows that he was always on the lookcredit aud who seldom checked out out to turn a penny , and was not too anything, but just had an inactive particular or sensitive as to the manner account, had ordered $5,000 or some of it. One of his long suits was in beother sum sent to him at his home in ing appointed administrator of the esIdaho or elsewhere, and that his ac- tates of deceased persons and then by count was to be charged, with the some circuitous method appropriating The bookkeeper, a young as much of the funds as possible to his amount. man against whom there is not a breath own use. The Norton estate case was of suspicion and whose only misdoing he entered the employ of John probably the most glaring of that par is that Prick 12, 1U02. mine to a London syndicate for $250,000, paid $50,000 to the promoter who worked the deal, and received a net balance of $200,000. Of this amount he paid off a mortgage of some $30,000 and interest held by McCornick against the properly; paid himself a claim of $20,000 which he had against the mine, and balance, about $150,000, Just kept the He refused to disgorge until ordered to do bo by the supreme court of this state. Another phase of the case is now pending in the court. Some people might call that stealing, but we will designate it simply as taking what didnt belong to him. He did it by a circuitous method, but when the matter came into court that availed him nothing. As administrator of the estate he offered the mine for sale, and after he had negotiated the deal in London he, through an agent, bought the property himself for about the amount of his own and McCornicks claims, and so made a handsome rake off at the expense of the widow and children of Norton and the creditors of the estate. The court held the sale of the mine by Dooly to Dooly as fraudulent and void. Another instance of Doolys thriftiness was in the matter of the Gilmer estate, but be was afterwards compelled to disgorge many thousands of dollars of his hard earnings. Some people who dont like Dooly called that stealing. ft ft in Among the many actions-at-lawhich Mr. Doolys name appears on the court records as defendant, is the following, which was begun in territorial days, when Elliott Sanford was judge of the Third judicial district. The cause is entitled Hugh Foley, Maurice Foley, John Foley, Ann Steedman, Biddy Nolan, Betty Foley, Mary Knox, Foley, Andrew Foley and Michael Foley, infants, by Waldemar VanCott their guardian ad litem, vs John E. Dooly. The complaint alleged that on or about the 4th day of August, 1887, John Fleming was the owner of a deposit of $2,010 in cash in the banking & Co., also 5o house of Wells-Farshares of Ontario stock valued at $1,500 and 200 shares of' Horn' Silver stock worth $200. Jhis money and stock he delivered. to ithis man John.E. Dooly, intrust, on the following conditions. It appears Fleming knew he was going to die and he wanted to arrange to dispose of his little wealth among his friends. Dooly was to first pay the funeral expenses of Fleming, second, sell the stock and collect the money in the hands of the bank and pay all remainder to the children of Michael Foley of Killan, County Wexford, Ireland. ' Dooly accepted the trust. On. w Jo-hann- go 4 ah ; . . |