I Yale University Library

p

From the Library of
SIMEON E. BALDWIN, Y '61
Gift of his children
HELEN BALDWIN GILMAN
ROGER SHERMAN BALDWIN, Y '90
 ^927  ||

AN

EXAMINATION

OF CERTAIN ENTRIES IN THE] BOOKS OF THE

LATE ANB PRESENT FIRMS

or

DE FOREST & SON,

AND TBE

several accounts connected with them.

-0:0:0:0-

BY I*. BE FOREST,
ONE OF THE PARTNERS.
NEW-YORK-OCTOBER,
1839.

ERRATA.
Page 13, 4th line from the bottom, for " the all" read " all the."
Page 14, 10th line, for " would" read "could"
On Page 17th, 29th line, for « (see page 5th)" read "(see page 8 and 9th.)'»
18th Page, 6ih line, for " our" read " one."
20th Page, 2d line, for " transfer account" read " transferred account.".,
Same Page, 22 lines from bottom, for " lefial," read " legal."
appendix. .ft
Page 3, last line of ques. No. 7, for " questions," read " question." "j
9th Page, 2d line, for " in," read " on." W
26th Page, third line in first column, for " Jan. 14th," read " Sept. 4th.»
Page 29th, 2d line, for " were transferred," read " were transposed."
47th Page, in 1st line of ques., for "amount," read "account."
Page 50th, third line of the account, for " $387 33," read " $377 33." ft

PREFACE.

Before entering upon the proposed examination, it is deemed proper
to observe, that in going into a full investigation of each item, in each
of the entries, and in each of the accounts, under consideration, it seems
indispensible to a clear and distinct understanding of them, to take up
separately, the parties and accounts in each, which are made either wrong
debtors or wrong creditors in them, and examine each of them separ
ately, so that- all the wrong debits and wrong credits, which may exist
in the whole account of that party or account, may be made to appear in one
condensed view ; because, unless this is done, it is easily foreseen, that the
greatest confusion would at once be produced. For instance, one party is
made a wrong debtor, and four other parties are made wrong creditors, in
the same entry. Now it is necessary to apply all your arguments as drawn
from facts, and from the principles of book-keeping and law, and from the
rights and interests of parties and accounts, to show how, why and where
fore, that party is a wrong debtor. When this is done, although it may be
perfectly apparent at the moment, that all the other parties are also made
wrong creditors in the sSme entry ; yet, when you come to examine the en
tries and accounts of" those parties and accounts, which are thus made wrong
creditors, all the facts and arguments wh'ch were employed to shew that
the entry, or accounts of the party wJio is a debtor in it, is wrong, will
in most cases be either overlooked or entirely forgotten, as applicable to these
parties and accounts. For these among other reasons, therefore, it has been
considered absolutely necessary, to a full understanding of the actual state
of our books and accounts, to examine separately each of the items in the
particular entries under consideration, and each of the accounts of the sev
eral parties and accounts connected with them ; and to apply to each of them
separately, all the facts and arguments, which were considered pertinent to
prove that they are wrong. And although I am aware, that this course must
necessarily, greatly extend the examination, and lead to frequent repetitions
of the same facts, and to a frequent recurrence, to the same rights and in
terests, and to the same principles and arguments ; yet, I hope and trust,
that the necessity of the case, and the great importance of the subject, to all
the parties interested, will be a sufficient apology for me, in adopting this
course. I am aware, that such a publication as this, is altogether novel, and per
haps unprecedented, and is therefore, liable to be used against me as a
matter of reproach ; but as it is intended to be put into the hands of those
only, who are either immediately interested, or who have already become
more or less acquainted with the case, and particularly, (notwithstanding
my deep interest in these books and accounts,) as the circumstances in
which I am placed,seem to bar the door »gainst any other peaceable and de
sirable way, to come at the truth, and to show by actual demonstrations what
the real state and condition, of our books and accounts are. I must for the
present, so far cast myself upon the charity of the reader, as to request him
to suspend an unfavorable opinion on that point, at least, until he shall have
carefully read it through, and if then satisfied I have done amiss, condemn
0j6i THE AUTHOR.

CONTENTS.

PAGI f
(C

First Articles of submission, 
My Letter accompanying do. with accounts and statements,
Joint Letter to the Referees, ;containing our second articles of sub
mission 
My Letter accompanying joint letter, &c,  ;
M. Monson's account, old books,  1"
Remittance account, do.,  1»
Transferred account of Monson, De Forest if Son, compared with
their proper account, old books,  2(
Entry of 15th December, do. do., examined,  2S-
Transfer of their account, improper and useless, 2£
Monson, De Forest & Son's proper account, old books, ... 2*
Interest account and charges account, both proved to be wrong from
examination of above account,  2"
Certain Items in corresponding entries, new books, which do not
belong to them, . . . _  2?
Mr. Burrill's answer to question No. |7,  2!
M. Monson's proper account, new books,  31
Blended account of M. Monson,  3i
Corresponding entries, new books,  31
Monson, De Forest & Son's proper account, new books, 3*
Blended account of Monson, De Forest & Son, .... 3!
Above account compared with their propei account, and with the ac
count transferred, old books, also with their proper account new
books,  4!
Commission account, new books,  41
Interest account,  4!
Baring, Brothers & Co., account in new books,  4"
Exchange account,  4i
Voyage account, per Brig Paulina in Co. with B. Ricketson, . . 4!
Brig Paulina and Owners, (vessel) account, new books, ... 4!
The two accounts of De Forest & Son, new firm, on the old books,
and De Forest & Son, old firm, on the new books examined . 5(

AN

EXAMINATION, «fcc.

It is a fact already but too well known, that a most unhappy difference
of opinion commenced some months since between ray partner and myself,
in regard to the state of our Books. I on my part affirming they were wrong,
and he on the contrary insisting they were right. And that with a view to
settle this difference between us, we agreed to submit the simple question, —
Whether they were right, or whether wrong, to Refferees ; all wliich will
more fully appear by the articles of submission, as herein set forth— and by
which it will be seen, that if they decided that the Books were wrong, they
were also to decide and point out the method by which they must be cor
rected. And if they decided they were right, then the whole result of their
decisions simply was, that they were to remain as they were ; in other
words, neither he or I, were to attempt to alter them. And while I on my
part admit, that they did decide the books were right, (See Ap. K.) yet I
also claim that this decision cannot, nor does not, in any way, manner, or
shape, affect or control the rights and interests of any of the parties who
have dealings and accounts with either of our Firms — because not being par
ties to this refference, they cannot on any principle be bound by it. And
therefore, notwithstanding this decision, all the rights and interests of those
parties, as well as all the accounts in those books, must nevertheless, still be
adjusted and settled, according to the well known and established principles
of book-keeping, law, and according to the rights of parties and accounts — ,
just as if no such reference and decision had been had.
But in addition to all this, I also further claim that this decision is wholly
nugatory and void, because it is made in direct violation of their instructions
and of the very principles and facts on which, by the express terms and con
ditions ofthe articles of submission, the referees were specifically bound to
decide the question submitted to them. And for proof of this, I appeal to
the articles themselves, and to the facts and principles involved in the entries
and accounts submitted to them, as they shall be spread out and exemplified
in the following pages, In reference then, first, to the rights and interests
of the deceased Mr. Gould, who was a partner in one of these firms, (but
who was not either by himself or his executors, a party to this refeience,)
and also in reference to all the other parties who have open accounts with
either firm ; and to all open accounts with either, it can hardly fail to be
seen, that in regard to all those parties and accounts, the question whether
our books are right or wrong, is now just as much open and undecided, and
just as important, still to be ascertained and determined, as it was before this
reference and decision.
Under a full conviction then, of the truth, as well as vast importance of
these considerations, facts and principles, I shall proceed to show, and (un
less I greatly deceive myself) trust I shall fully demonstrate, that, both in
the entries and all the accounts connected with them, which were submitted
to the referees for their decision, and as a test of the right or wrong of all
the other entries in both sets of books, there are not only numerous, but gross

L 4 1
errors existing; and if such is proved to be the fact in regard to them, then
it can easily De imagined, as they are to be the test of all others, what must
be the actual condition of all the other entries and accounts in the books of
these two firms— and the disastrous, if not in some cases even ruinous con
sequences, which must necessarily result, in case our books are to "remain
as they are." (See Ques. Nos. 21, 22 and 29.;
With these remarks, I proceed now to show what the actual state and re
lative condition of those two firms were, at the dissolution of the one and
commencement of the other.— How the books of those two firms have been
kept, and the grounds and principles which have been adopted by our book
keeper, in adjusting and closing up the accounts and business of the old,
and carrying on the business and affairs of the new firm.
I shall next attempt to show the fallacy ofthe arguments and principles
by which my opponents attempt to justify and uphold this state of the books
and accounts, and claim them to be correct, legal and right; and then en
deavor not only to show, but to demonstrate how greatly erroneous those
books and accounts actually are, on the principles of book-keeping, of law,
and of the rights and interests of parties and accounts, even on their own
principles. The late firm was dissolved by mutual consent of all the partners, on the
29th May, 1832, and Mr. Gould gave a power of attorney to L. & Wm. W.
De Forest, (not De Forest & Son, new firm,) authorising them to settle all
the affairs of that firm. A new copartnership was immediately formed be
tween L. & Wm. W. De Forest, under the same title as the former, and a
new sett of books opened accordingly. The young man who then wrote in
our books had not the advantage of much experience in book-keeping, and
Mr. Jno. E. Burrill who then lived with us, and who professed to be a mas
ter of the art of book-keeping, undertook to assist and direct him in keeping
the books, (See Ques. Nos. 5 and 6,) and I was careful in the commencement,
and from time to time, to point out to both of them the general principles
by which they must be governed in closing the books and affairs of the old
firm, .and keeping those ofthe new.
Things proceeded in this way for some months, and to the frequent en
quiries put by me to Mr. Burrill, whether he kept a close eye upon the book
keeper and saw that the books were kept correct, he always replied he did 5
and almost always on those occasions he was requested to examine the en
tries every night. About seven months passed off, when I noticed an entry
on the old books which purported to transfer the balance of the account of
Monson & De Forest & Son from those books, to the books of the new firm,
which I perceived was wholly wrong. This led to further enquiries and
investigations, and I soon found that they had most unfortunately assumed
the ground, that the old firm and the new were one and the same, in all
their affairs, responsibilities and interests, and that instead of carrying on
the business of the old firm by regular entries on those books, the transac
tions as they occurred, were indiscriminately entered in the old books or
the new; so that monies due the old firm, when paid, were passed to the cred
it of the party in the new books, making them creditors there, instead of
cancelling their indebtedness to the old firm by passing it to their credit on
those books ; and large open accounts, and outstanding business, between
various parties and the old firm, were carried on by entries on the new
books as transactions occurred, just as if the new firm was the party to these
transactions and accounts instead of the old one.
Alarmed at such a state of our books, I expressed my surprise and alarm
to Mr. Burrill, who to my utter astonishment insisted that it was all right !
and the more I leasoned with him and endeavored to convince him how
grossly wrong it was to attempt to keep the books in this way, the more
strongly did he insist that they were right. Under these circumstances,
therefore, a controversy arose between us which after some weeks termuv

[5]
ated in his full admission that the books were wrong. (See Ques No 17,
18, 19, 20 and 21.)
It seems proper to remark here, that during the whole of this controversy
my partner took a decided stand witti Mr. Burrill, and contended hke him
that the books were all right, until Mr. Burrill himself actually (as here
shown) admitted they were wrong, when with apparent candor he agreed
to dismiss Mr. Burrill as I desired, and voluntarily did so. At this lime
(whilst I was confined at ruy house by sickness) he promised to procure a
book-keeper, and no further' trouble or difficulty was apprehended on my
part other than that of putting our books ri^ht again.
Days and weeks passed away, however, and no movement was made by
my partni r to get a book keeper ; and finally, he refused to do it altogether ;
and on the ground (as he affirmed) that our books were all right when
taken together, and he would not consent to any alteration or correction of
them. Here then, the same controversy which Mr. Burrill had so long main
tained, and in which he had so fully admitted himself to be wrong, vvas now
commenced anew by my partner, and nothing short of a submission to re
ferees would satisfy him ; and on the 1st of March, having agreed on re
ferees, we drew up and signed our instructions to them, containing the
grounds of dispute between us, the facts and conditions on which it was to
be submitted, and the facts and principles by which they were to be govern
ed in their decission.
I deem it proper here to remark, that for about three weeks after this
agreement was executed between us, I did every thing in my power to avoid
the mortification of calling upon the referees, and urged my partner to study
book-keeping, if it was only for a few evenings, and I was sure he could not
fail to see for himself, that the books as they now stand, must be wrong.
I urged the opinion of Mr. Miller, Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Bennett, (which I
had obtained, See questions No. 1, 2, 3, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22. all which
went as I claimed to demonstrate, that the books were wrong,) and in addi
tion to these, the answers which Mr. Burrill had given to questions which
had been put to him, (See questions No. 4 to No. 11, inclusive,) as also being
conclusive on the same point — but all to no purpose. The articles of sub
mission were accordingly laid before the referees, as follows:
Whereas, a difference of opinion exists between the undersigned, in rela
tion to the books of the late and present firms of De Forest <f Son, which
in their opinion, involve the correctness or incorrectness of said books as
they now stand. They hereby agree to submit the same to the decision of
two impartial and intelligent persons; and the matter for consideration and
decision is to be presented as follows :
The question to be settled is, whether the books of De Forest & Son, late
firm, (which firm was composed of three persons,) and whether the books
of De Forest § Son, present firm, (which firm is composed of two per
sons,) are right or wrong, in reference to the rights and interests of any
one, or more of the parties referred to in the several entries as thay now ap
pear on the face of them, according to the fundamental principles of book
keeping, and the laws of the state, as applicable to the sev<_ral entries in those
books. It is also further agreed between the undersigned, that if the referees agree
in opinion, said opinion is to be considered as a final decision. If said re
ferees differ, they may call a third person, and the opinions of any two of
them shall be considered as a final decision. If the decision be, that the
books are right, then the question is to be considered as finally settled, and
ihe books will remain as they are. If the decision be, that the books are
wrong, the said referees shall then determine the proper method of correct-

L e 1
ing said books, (which method shall be adopted.) All needful explanations
are to be given to the said referees on both sides of the question.
L. DE FOREST,
Wm. W. DE FOREST.
It is agreed that the referees above referred to, shall be David N. Lord
and Wm. B. Bolles of this city.
New-York, March 1st, 1833. New-York, 18th March, 1833.-
Messrs. D. N. Lord and Bolles,
Gentlemen:— The unfortunate difference of opinion between me und
my partner, relative to the state of the books of the late and present firms
of De Forest & Son, has by mutual consent, been submitted to your decision,
and is fully slated in a copy of our agreement herewith handed to you.
Before entering on the examination of the question, I beg leave to state
what I claim in regard to my rights as a partner in those firms, and the
Claims I have on the laws of the land to protect me in those rights.
As a partner, then, I claim the right, whenever I find an entry made in
those books, in violation of the principles of book-keeping, or of the law as
applicable to such entry, or of the rights and interest of any party or ac
count named in such entry, lo pronounce such entry wrong and to disavow
it; and this right I claim, not only as against my book-keeper who made
the entry, but also against my partner and all others.
As a partner, I als=o claim that on every principle of book-keeping and of
law, as well as in reference to the rights and intersts of all and every per
son, party or account, named or interested in the affairs, or business, or
books of the late firm ; that the whole affairs and business of that firm,
must be brought to a final close on the books of that firm, by regular, cor
rect and legal entries of all the affairs and transactions of said firm, placed
to the proper accounts, and said accounts all brought to a correct, true and
legal close on said books, without any intermingling or blending with the
books or accounts of any other firm.
I also particularly claim, that in reference to the settlement and final close
of the b )oks of the late firm as above stated, the rights and interests of
our deceased partner, Mr. Gould, demand that the bocks should be so kept,
and so brought to a final close, and the whole profit or loss of the concern,
made to appear in ihe profit or loss account on a final settlement of the
concern ; because by the terms of that co-partnership, all the interest which
Mr. Gould had in that concern was one-eighth interest in the profit or loss of
the same.
Having thus stated what I claim as a partner, and also in behalf of Mr.
Gould, I proceed to state what I claim in reference to the forms and manner
of making entries in books, generally, and particularly in the books of the
two firms in which I am a partner.
I claim then, that every entry in both sets of books must be made on the
fundamental principles of book-keeping, viz : To every debit there must be
a credit for the same specific thing and same amount. That the thing re
ceived must be made debtor to the thing- given for it, or in other words, the ac
count lo which any thing comes in, or Jor which any thing goes out, is to be
charged or made debtor , and the account from which any thing goes out or
for which any thing comes in, is to be discharged or made credit, (Ma'ir's
book-keeping, page 21st.) I claim further, that every entry in both sets of
books, must be made, at least, so far true and correct in itself, as to be sus*
tained against the partv in a court of law.
I claim further, that "every entry in both sets of book must be made so as
not to violate either of the foregoing principles, and also, so as not to injure
the rights or interests of any single one of the persons or party, or ac
count named in such entry.
Inviting your attention then to my claims as thus plainly stated and

m
referring you to the principles on which you are called by Our mutual agree
ment to decide the questions submitted lo you, I now proceed to present for
your consideration, the entries made by our book-keeper (unknown to
me) in the books of both firms, which you have herewith, together with
the account of M. Monson in both sets of books and remittance account, on
old books, also such facts and testimony, as I consider pertinent to ihe
case, and decisive of the question, on the principles on which you are to de
cide it.
And if on due consideration of these entries and accounts, you should be
of opinion that they are wrong in any or all, the principles on which they
are submitted to you. I desire you in giving your opinion, not only to say so
as regards these entries, and these accounts; but (as the submission is gen
eral, as to all the entries and accounts in both sets of books,) that you will
also say, that each and all the entries in both sets of books, which are made
in violation of either, or all the principles by which you decide this entry
to be wrong, are also wrong !
With these remarks, I invite your attention to the entries and accounts
themselves, and to the statements drawn from them, together with my com
ments upon them ; and also to such parts of the facts and testimony, stated
in the answers of our book-keeper, Wm. S. Thomas, Mr. G. Millerand Mr.
Simeon Baldwin, and particularly to that of Mr. John E. Burrill, as relates
to these entries and these accounts.
And here I beg leave to state, that I wish it to be fully understood, that
under my rights as a partner, I make no claim to disavow any entry in our
books, which is truly, correctly and legally made ; but such only as are
made in violation of the principles of book-keeping, of law, or of the rights
of parties or accounts.
I also wish it to be distinctly understood, that the accounts of Monson &
De Forest & Son, as they stand separately in each set of books, contain in
themselves on the face of them, all that can of right or by law, or in re
ference to the rights of parties and accounts, either appertain or belong to
them, I do, therefore, Wholly protest against any debit or credit being put upon
either of them, which may be drawn from any other accounts, or from any
other source whatever ; except by proper, correct and legal transfers from one
account to another, or from one set of books to the other. And particularly
do I protest against any entry or entries being made upon either of them,
which shall have been drawn from the blended accoun yp$ r ft *'/ taft&feetttsft
I also apply the same remarks, and make the same objections as to Monson's
private account, and his blended account. I also wholly protest as a part
ner in both firms, as well as in behalf of all the parties and accounts existing
in both books, against any blending or in any way intermingling, or connect
ing the books and accounts, or business and affairs of the two firms together.
And on the contrary, I claim and insist that the two firms, are in fact, as
well as in law and in regard to the rights of parties, and accounts entirely dis
tinct and separate concerns ; and as such, all the affairs and business of each,
as well as their books and accounts must be kept entirely separate and distinct
from each other, excepting such regular,correct and legal transfers as may, by
consent of parties, be made on them ; and that no transfers can be made of
accounts from the old books to the new, that could not with equal propriety
and legal effect be transferred to the books of any other house in the city.
And, although, we as surviving partners of the old firm are to settle that
concern, yet, that we are bound by every principle of justice, of law and of
the rights of parties and accounts, as they exist on the books of that firm, to
settle the whole business and affairs as well as their books and accounts, en
tirely distinct and separate, and without any intermingling or connection
with any other books, or gay other firm whatever. And I also claim,
that every subsidiary account, existing in either books must be kept balanced

L 8 1
and closed on those books, as regularly, truly and correctly as any real or
personal account. , ,
Craving your particular notice and consideration of all the grounds and
principles I have laid down and claimed, as well as all that I disavow and re
ject in reference to the questions submitted to you.
I hand vou, herewith, the entries in both books wider date ot J 5th
December," the correctness or incorrectness of which you are to decide, and
the following accounts, in all which I claim that great and important errors
exist viz *
ACCOUNTS IN OLD BOOKS.
Monson $¦ De Forest if Son, with late firm.
Monson $ De Forest <j Son, bein^ an account made up of certain por
tions only of their accounts, in both books, which 1 call a blended or spurious
account. M. Monson's private account with late firm.
M. Monson, being a blended account made up from his accounts in both
books. — aud
Remittance account, in books of late firm, together with the accounts in
new books, viz :
Monson $ De Forest fy Son, new firm — and
M. Monson's private account, with do.
And in explanation of these entries and accounts, I also hand you state
ments No. 1, 2, 4 and 5, all which relate to the accounts of Monson & De
Forest & Son, and No. 3, which relates to the remittance account, and all
in old books — and invite your particular attention to them, together with the
corresponding ones on the new books. And with these I also hand you the
following statements drawn from the entries and accounts in the new books
as follows, viz: Statements Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 10, all which relate to the ac
counts of Monson & De Forest & Son, and No. 9, which relates to M. Mon
son's private account, all on new books, and all which refer to correspond
ing entries on old books.
You also have Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, new books, all relating to Monson &
De Forest & Son's account on these books, and to the blended account, and
No. 9 relating to M. Monson's private account, all in new books.
And now reserving the right to make any further communications I may
find necessary, and holding myself ready to make any explanation you may
require, I submit the case to your decision.
* • r;~:-. ;^ an(j am most respectfully,
yours, &c.
L. DE FOREST
P. S. I wish here to add — That I also claim and insist, that when an
entry is made on one set of books, which on the face of it is admitted to be
" wrong into to, when viewed abstractedly," that it can never be made right
even on the books where it is made, except by reversing such entry on those
books. And much more, do I conceive it to be preposterous, if not even
rediculous, for any person and more especially for a book-keeper, to pretend
that such an entry can be made right by entries made in another set of
books, belonging to another firm ! L. DE FOREST.
But as by these first articles, the question whether the books were right
or wrong was general, and applied to all the entries in them, we agreed to
select certain particular entries, and make them the test of the whole, as
will appear by our additional articles of instructions, as follows :
New- York, March 27th, 1833.
Messrs. D. N. Lord, and Wm. B. Bolles, Esquires,
Gentlemen :— We have submitted to your final arbitrament and decision

LO |
the question in dispute between us on the principles, terms and conditions,
as specified in our article of mutual agreement and submission now in your
hands. With a view to relieve you from the trouble of investigating the books
of both firms, and all those entries in them, which may have been made in
violation of the principles of book-keeping, of law, and of the rights of
parties and accounts.
We now select certain entries as they exist in both books, and hand you
herewith ; and do each of us mutually agree to make these entries, and the
parties and accounts severally named, and either directly or indirectly in
terested or connected with them ; the test and criterion by which you shall
decide the question submited to you, viz: Whether the books of each firm
are right, or whether they are wrong in reference to the rights and interests
of some one or more of the parties or accounts, interested or connected as
above stated in those entries, on the fundamental principles of book-keeping,
and of the laws of the state, as applicable to the several entries in those
books. And if you shall be of opinion, (on the examination of these entries on the
books,)that those entries are all right on those principles,and those laws ; then
you are to give us your written opinion and decision, not only that these
entries are right, but that all the other entries in the books made on the
same principles, are also right.
But, if on the contrary you shall be of the opinion, that any one or more
or all of those enti ies are wrong in reference to the rights and interests of
any one or more of the parties, or accounts named or connected, or interest
ed in them as above stated, and on those principles, and those laws as
above stated ; then you are to give us your written opinion and decision ac
cordingly, not only in reference to the several entries thus selected and sub
mitted to you as a test of all other entries; but also, that on the principles
of book-keeping, of law, and of the rights and interests of parlies and ac
counts, (on which you are to decide,) that all the other entries, also which
exist in the books, which have been made in those books in violation of the
above principles, laws, and rights of parties and accounts, are wrong also.
Agreeing then as we now do, that you shall, in deciding the whole ques
tion submitted' to you, confine yourselves to these several entries as a test
and criterion of all other entriesinthe books; we relieve you from the trou
ble and labor of examining the books any further than those entries, and
the parties and accounts relating to, or connected with them, necessarily
require. We are respectfully
Yours, &c.
L. DE FOREST,
Wm. W. DE FOREST.

New-York, 27th March, 1833.
Messrs. D. N. Lord and Bolles, Referees,
Gentlemen :
I hand you herewith the entries of 5th September, the first in old books,
being transfer of balance due M. Monson on those books, $14,861 02 to his
credit in new books, and the latter a corresponding entry in new books.—
(See Ap. F.) If you turn to his account, old books in your hands, yon will
find him charged on the 4th September for 4,050 pounds at 10 per cent, pre
mium, being his proportion of 10,000 pound, remitted Baring, Brothers & Co.
1st February, which whole 10,000 pounds was then as this very entry states,
correctly charged to Monson & De Forest & Son — note this ! You will also
find, that by the interest account as stated in this account, that he is also
charged with the interest (on this 4,050 poifnds at 10 per cent., or 19,800
B

L 10 1
dollars) from 1st February to 1st September, §693, making in all $20,493,
On the 22d September, we were informed by Mr. Monson, that he had
used the 4,050 for account of Monson & De Forest & Son, at Buenos Ayres.
As therefore, Monson had been erroneously charged with the $19,800, and
interest on it on the 4th September, it became necessary to cancel that
charge to him and to the interest account on the old books ; and how was this
done? You will please note here, that on the 5th September, (the day af
ter Monson was charged the $19,800,) the balance of his account, $14,-
86 1 02 was transferred to the new books. And you will further observe, that
if he had not been charged with the $19,800,and interest $693,on the 4th Sept.
the late firm would have owed him, instead of a balance of $14,861 02, a
balance of $35,354 02. But as he was so charged with it, and as remittance
account on the old books had credit for the $19,800, and interest account
for the $693. This wrong debit to Monson and wrong credit to the other
two accounts, can never be cancelled until those entries are reversed in the
very books, in which the erroneous entries were made — for until this is done
on those books, (remittance account,) has a wrong credit on those books for
$19,800, and interest account a wrong credit for the $693: and never can
these accounts, or Monson's private account be settled and closed on these
books till this is done.
And now to the question. How have these erroneous entries actually
been attempted to be corrected ? By turning to account of Monson & De
Forest & Son, new books, under date of 22d September, you will see that
instead of making a reverse entty on the books where the errors existed,
and correcting all the accounts that stand wrong there. Our book-keeper
has made the entry on the books of the new firm who have no more to do
with it than any other house in town ; thereby making Monson & De Forest
Son, debtors to the new firm for $20,493, not one cent of which did they
owe that firm, but which they then did, and still do owe to the late firm.—
And thereby, also making Monson a creditor to the new firm for $20,493,
not one cent of which did that firm owe him; and which accounts, all
stand wrong debited and wrong credited for these erroneous entries on both
sets of book up to this very time.
With these remarks, I now present you with the only correct and legal
entries, which on the principles of book-keeping, of law, and of the rights and
interests of parties and accounts, can as I humbly claim, ever be made to cor
rect those erroneous entries in those books, and put all the parties and ac
counts right in respect to them, (See Ap. G.) By these entries, all the ac
counts are made to stand legally and properly correct. And instead of the
new firm owing M. Monson the $19,800, and the interest act. $693, the old
firm owe him both these sums, and instead of Monson & De Forest & Son
owing the new firm the $20,493, they owe the old firm $19,800 of it, and
interest account on old books owe them the $693. Are the accounts then
of Monson & De Forest & Son, and of M. Monson, all closed on the old
books as they are represented to him to be. And is it so? (as the blended
accounts rendered him represents.) that M. Monson & De Forest & Son
owe the new firm a balance on account of $23,370 93 ? On the contrary,
do not Monson & De Forest & Son now owe the old firm the whole$19,800,
and interest account the $693, by a good and legal demand against them,
ou the face of their account. And do not the old firm in like manner owe M.
Monson the same sums ? Has the new firm any thing more to do with the
accounts of these parties, and what is due, to and from them in the
old books, than any other house in the city? Can any entries that
can be made in the new books(even if the parties in that concern ad
mitted it,) ever cancel the debits and credits to these respective accounts
on the old books? A.nd if, as the entry of the 22d September, new books,
on the face of it states, that Monson & De Forest & Son, were already
correctly charged with the $19,800, on the first of February, and, if that
<vas a valid charge, is not that of 22d September a double charge against

L 11 1
mtui ior that sum. For the plain reason already given, that neither remit
tance act. nor M. Monson's act.,nor in'stact., old books can ever be settled and
closed on those books, until this very thing is charged back to them there.
But I will carry my enquiries nor 'further, although I might show other
wrong results ; and only remark, that such is the effects which are produced
in our books, by the system adopted by our book-keeper and Mr. John E.
Burrill, in closing up the affairs and business, and accounts of the old firm,
and in keeping the books of the new firm; and to you, gentlemen, it is sub
mitted to decide, whether such books are right or wrong, on the principles
of book-keeping, of law, and the rights of parties and accounts.
And here again I repeat my former request, that in giving your opinions,
if you find any or all of the accounts wrong, to the extent and amounts
which I have stated in regard to each, that you will say so on the back of
each statement, or include the fact as part of your written decision. To
one or the other of which I trust, you will consider me fully entitled.
I am yours truly,
L. DE FOREST.

New-York, 2d April, 1833.
Messrs. Lord and Bolles — Referees,
Gentleman :
It is with a view only to present, the case (if prossible) more plain to
your understanding, and call your atttention to the simple principles on
which alone you are to decide it, and thus relieve you from any imaginary
difficulty, that I again address you. Please then, first look at the terms of
the submission on which you are bound to decide ; then look at the original
entry in the old books which is the foundation and basis ofthe entries in the
new books. I will not insult your understanding and senses, by asking you
whether that entry does not say, what it does say ? You have it — you have
compared it with the book, all the universe cannot convince you that it does
not say and declare, what it does say and declare?
What then is the plain simple question for you to decide ? Why, simply
and only, whether on the principle.0 of book-keeping, of law, and of the
rights of parties and accounts, that entry is right or wrong. If, on merely
looking at the entry itself, you have a doubt that it violates in some one or
all its parts, every one of the above principles ! I refer you first to the
rules of book-keeping,quoted in my letter on that point; also,your own know
ledge of law, as to whether it will enable a person to recover a charge on
his books against A, which the very entry itself declares to be due from B.
And thirdly, whether it does not do palpable injustice to the rights and in
terest of A, to make him a debtor on your books, for a specific thing which
your book declares to be due from B !
On the principles then, on which you are to decide, — Is there a possibility
of your being mistaken ?
Does the magnitude of the errors towhich these wrong entries so inevitably
lead, frighten you and lead you to doubt. The fact is still the same — the
books so stand ! They cannot be perverted to speak a language different
from what they do speak, or to vary a single fact which they so plainly set
forth. But do you still want further evidence on either or all these points. I refer
you to that of Mr. Miller, Mr. Baldwin and our book-keeper, Mr. Thomas,
and finally to Mr. Jno. E. Burrill the professed master of the art and science
of book-keeping — all of whom, by the answers they have given to questions
in writing, most fully and decisively prove, every part, and the whole of this
entry and every other entry in our books which is made on the same princi
ples as these, to be wrong to the whole extent I claim.
And I venture to say, that no ingenuity, no sophistry, no conceiveable

[12]
possibility can do away the facts as they appear on the books, and make
that right which the books themselves, and every principle of book-keeping,
law, and the rights of parties declare to be wrong.
I had hoped, I should not feel compelled to address you again, but find
ing I had omitted to hand you some of Mr. Burrill's important testimony,
I now enclose it to you with a short synopsis of it as a guide, and trust with
the statements and explanations in your hands, the facts before your own eyes
and the principles on which you are to decide, so plainly pointed out, that
you can have no difficulty in bringing the matter to a speedy and correct de
cision. I am yours, &c.
L. DE FOREST.
And now, as it is all important to a correct understanding of the subject,
that the real question in dispute, should not only be clearly understood, but
closely adhered to, through all this investigation. I beg again to state, that it
simply is, whether the books are right, or whether they are wrong !
But before an examination of the documents is entered upon, it is proper to
state the following most extraordinary and very important fact, viz : during
the controversy with Mr. Burrill, I had called on our book-keeper for the ac
count of Monson & De Forest & Son, on the old books. He accordingly
gave me the account, and certified it to be correct. And without a suspicion
on my part that it was not so, I labored upon that account, and the entries
which were founded upon it about three weeks, showing by statements
drawn from the entries and the various accounts connected with them, many
of the errors which existed in them — when to my astonishment, I discovered
that the account so rendered me, was not the true and proper account of
Monson & De Forest & Son as it stood on the books. I therefore caused
their true and proper account to be drawn off, word for word, and figure for
figure as it stands on the books with evey item of both debit and credit and
no more, which was done and certified by our book-keeper, to be the true
and proper account. (See Ap. E. This account was enclosed to the refer
ees in my letter of the 25th March, calling their attention particularly to
this important fact, and pointing out some only, of the great discrepancies
between this and the account which was made the ground of the entry, and
of the transfer of the 15th December, old books, so that the referees were
fully informed, and had their attention particularly called to this all import
ant fact, for a week before they made their award.New-York, 25th March, 1833.
Messrs. D. N. Loud and Wm. B. Bolles,
Gentlemen, I should not trouble you with any further evidence, to show the cer
tainty that our books are wrong, were it not for the disastrous consequences
that must flow from their remaining as they are, not only as regards the char
acter of our house and of each individual partenr (all being involved
in the question whether we keep true and honest books,) but also, as re
gards the rights and interests of each firm respectively, and that of every
other person or party, or account existing in those books. You will bear
with me therefore, in urging upon your minds, the great importance of the
subject submitted to you, and allow me to say, that it is believed that few
cases of the magnitude of this, in all its bearings of character and pecuniary
interest ever come before our courts of justice, or are ever submitted to re
ferees. I beg you, therefore, in reference to all the considerations before mention
ed, to scrutinize carefully the several statements, and counter statements, I
have made, and test their correctness, as well as the painciples, I claim and
maintain ; while on the other hand, I beg you to look forward to the disas
trous consequences which must result from the principles and course adopt
ed by our book-keeper, in placing our books and tbe business and affairs of
the two firms, in the condition which he has.

L 13 1
With these remarks, I have now to call your attention to one more strong
(though for Mr. Thomas unfortunate) test of the unhappy and disastrous
condition, in wliich he, under the direction of Mr. Jno. E. Burrill has placed
our books, our characters and interests, as well as the rights and interests of
all parties who have dealt with us.
And also, particularly to invite you to consider, (as the evidence now
aduced shews) the melancholy expedient he has so unfortunately found it
necessary to adopt, in order to sustain the correctness of our books ; but,
though calculated to mislead and deceive, not only myself and partner, but
yourselves also in this most important affair. YTet, I would charitably hope
and believe, he has not done it with the intent, wilfully to misrepresent and
deceive, but from his actual ignorance or want of judgment in appljing the
infallible principles of book-keeping, and the application of law, to entries
and accounts. And now to the facts.
You have before you already the account of Monson # De Forest & Son,
and of remittance account, old books, both certified by Mr. Thomas to be
true and correct accounts, and were both so considered by me, down to the
time when I had completed the statements now before you in reference to
these two accounts ; but discovering on a more close scrutiny and compari
son of them, and by a personal examination of the books, that while the
former contained among other things, the whole of the items of the debit
side of the remittance account, it did not contain the Hem of transfer of the
balance of remittance account, say $99,742 41, which stands charged to the
proper account of Monson & De Forest & Son on these books ; while at the
same time, he has arbitrarily placed on the account so drawn off and render
ed me a credit to that account of the $19,800, which does not stand to the
credit of Monson & De Forest & Son on these books, but is the very thing
which as you will see by my statements, constitutes the balance still due from
remittance account, and for which sum that account is still open on those
books ; and of course the account of M. Monson is also open there for same
amounts. To prove this, I now hand you the real true, correct and proper account
of M. Monson & De Forest & Son on the old books, and which I believe
you will find to compare with the entries on the books, which shew a totally
different account from the first account rendered me, and leading to totally
different results in allthe accounts, directly or remotely connected with it. I
forbear any further comments upon this unhappy circumstance at this time,
except to remind you of the disastrous condition in which our books, as they
now stand, place not only ourselves, but all others who shall have been so
unfortunate as to have dealt with us, if our books are to remain as they
now are, and be enforced against them.
If necessary, I shall hereafter speak of the best way to correct the books,
if you find them to be wrong. I am yours truly,
L. DE FOREST.

New- York, 29th March, 1833.
Messrs. D. N. Lord and Wm. B. Bolles, Esquires,
Gentlemen, From the nature of your examinations and enquires last evening, 1 am
led to fear that you are considering the question submitted to you, on the
ground that the two firms of De Forest <$¦ Son are one and the same concern.
The disastrous consequences which must follow such an assumption, not
only to the two firms and the the estate of Mr. Gould, but also to all the parties
and accounts existing on those books, and with whom each firm have dealt,
impels me to entreat you to pause before you decide ; and to say to you,
that if the affirmations I have so often made, both in my letters to you, and
C

[14 j
in the various statements in your hands, that these two firms are entirely se
parate and distinct concerns, composed of different persons, and having m
connection with each other in their interests or business.
I say, if these affirmations fail to satisfy you of that fact, I would refei
you to the article of submission in your hands for further proof; it is then
most distinctly stated, that one of those firms is composed of three per
sons, and the other! of only two. And you know the fact, that the oldfirrr
was dissolved in May last, and that the new firm then commenced ; and
that Mr. Gould (then partially deranged) not long after died, and therefore
could have no interest in the new firm.
If these facts do not establish that they are two separate and distinct con
cerns, I would then entreat you to give me an opportunity further to ex
plain, and to present to you my own affirmation on oath, that the fact is
as above stated.
I am also for the same reasons, led to fear that you are considering the
blended account which was rendered Monson, as ihe real account of Mon
son & De Forest & Son on the new books, while you have in your hands
the real, and only account of Monson & De Forest & Son, (as it exists on
on the books of new firm) and certified to be so by Mr. Thomas, our book
keeper, (but which I prove to be wrong in various particulars from the
books themselves.)
I therefore beg you to give me an opportunity to explain further on this
subject, and to point you to the proofs now in your hands, that it is not the
account of Monson & De Forest & Son with the new firm, and with the old
firm it is not even pretended to be; but on the contrary, it purports to have
closed all the accounts of Monson & De Forest & Son, on the old books, and
this pretended balance of the blended account had already been transferred
to the new books, and actually constituted at that very time a part of the
balance of $23,370 93, which, both by the blended account, and the real
account of Monson & De Forest & Son, new books, purported to be due
from them to the new firm
I also beg you to consider, that all the documents I have put into your
hands, are testimony on my part to prove to you (excuse the remark, fori
deem it a proper matter of proof,) what the principles of book-keeping
really are, and what, by common consent they are understood to be, what
also the law of the land is, as applicable to books and accounts ; and by
my statements, all drawn from the facts as they appear in the books, 1
prove to you that the books are wrong in reference to the parties and ac
counts named in those statements, to the extent and amounts which I have
stated ; and also prove to you what the rights of parties and accounts are,
upon the principles of book-keeping and of law.
And allow mt to say, that as referees I consider you bound to admit and
to receive all these documents as good and valid testimony on my part, until
impeached before you by opposing testimony on the other side, or until all
or any part of it is disproved by the facts themselves, which you must ascer
tain from the examination of the books.
If you have a doubt of the correctness of this claim on my part, I desire
you to take counsel on the subject; and as this is a case of so much import
ance as before stated ; I beg you to consider it fully on both sides before you
decide. I am yours, &c.
L. DE FOREST.

t. xt T , ,x, r, ~ New-York, 30th March, 1833.
Messrs. D. N. Lord and Wm. B. Bolles, Esquires,
Gentlemen :
Although my partner very generously gives me full liberty to call on

115 I
you, and say whatever I may deem proper, as to the question in dis
pute between us, yet as he declines being present, I choose not to doi t ; you
wi.l therefore, excuse my saying so much by letter.
The grand difficulty with all those who maintain our books are ri^ld
seems to arise from the fact, that at the very threshold they entirehflose
sight of those principles of book-keeping, of law, and of the rights of par
ties, a departure from which is sure to lead to the greatest errors in ac
counts — to deprive every entry of all legal effect— and to injure and destroy
the interests of parties and accounts; and had I not actually beard
merchants and book-keepers, even in this enlightened age. and unbounded
extent of commercial enterprise and business, endeavor to argue in support
of entries iu books, which directly or indirectly violate all those principles
^—deprive them of all legal effect, and grossly injure the rights and interest
of every party and account connected with them, I should not deem it
necessary and proper to say a word more to you, than I have already said
and affirmed in my former letters and statements, to demonstrate either the
infallible necessity of adhering to those principles in the roost undeviating
manner in every entry that you make in books, or the fatal consequences
that must unavoidably flow, from a departure from them. Keeping those
principles then in view, I beg you to observe what I now affirm.
I say then, that De Forest & Son, new firm as such, never have had, and
never can have any thing whatever to do with the settlement of either the
business of the late firm, or of the estate of Mr. Gould.
But that L, & Wm. W. De Forest in their proper persons, and as such
only ; first, as attornies to Mr. Gould, and after his death, as surviving part
ners of the old firm, are the only persons known in law, or in any way re
sponsible for the correct and final settlement of that firm.
They having formed a new co-partnership, and having an office and clerks,
find it convenient to bring the affairs of the old firm to a close, by opening an
account with them in their books, and by correct and legal debits and
credits, receive all their property, debts and effects, and also to pay all their
debts. I ask then, if thus far, De Forest & Son, new firm, as such, had any
more connection with the old firm, than they have with every other party with
whom they do business ?
And are not L. & Wm. W. De Forest as surviving partners of the old
firm, and they only, responsible for the books of that firm being correctly and
legally kept, and its whole affairs finally and legally closed. With these un
deniable facts and responsibilities in your minds, please see what the book
keeper of the new firm (not the old observe) has done. He in his wisdom
has thought proper, without consulting us, to consider the old firm and the
new, both as one; not only as between the two firms themselves, but also
as to parties and accounts existing in the books of each ; the fact that
he has done so, you find certified by him on one of the accounts in your
hands. What then has been the consequences in respect only to the se
veral entries and accounts submitted to you to decide? And for a reply to
this important question, I refer you to the statements I have laid before you,
(which drawn as they are from the very facts which these entries and ac
counts disclose — I as a partner in both firms, as a book-keeper and a mer
chant do not hesitate to say, most uncontrovertibly prove, and fully demon
strate,) and you have the reply. And I also say, that unless, either my part
ner (who has compelled me, either to submit to our books remaining as
they are, or to arbitrate the matter,) or yourselves as referees, can shew from
these entries and accounts, as they exist on the books, that those statements
are wrong. The consequences of the course our book-keeper has adopted,
must be what 1 have stated. To demonstrate still further, not only the
ground I maintain, but also the principles for which I contend. I hand you
herewith the power of attorney under which L. & Wm. W. De Forest,
(not De Forest & Son) acted before the death of Mr. Gould ; and also, Mr.
G, Miller's answer to a question as to making an entry in books, which I

LitJl
cannot but think are perfectly conclusive, as to all [ here claim, and have
ever claimed, from the moment I first discovered the state of our„books.
Hoping not to have occasion to trouble you in this way again.
I am yours, &c.
L. DE FOREST.
P. S. In reference to the $4,697 25, charged Monson & De Forest &
Son, 15th December, new books; please notice that it is an original, specific
and distinct charge against them, and has no reference whatever to the
tranfer entry with which on the books it stand incorporated. L. DE F.
As therefore by our second articles of agreement, the entry of the 15th
December, old books, and the corresponding entries in the new books, were
to be the grand test of the right or wrong of all the other entries in both
sets of books, it will at once be seen, not only how vastly important it is
that the entries themselves are right ; but above all, that the account on which
they are founded, is in fact the true and proper account of Monson & De
Forest & Son. And if it is not — and if the entries in themselves are not
right, then to tny partner and the referees themselves, do I leave the task of
proving, that on the principles of book-keeping, of law, and of the rights
of parties and accounts ; this entry, and the corresponding ones in the new
books, togetherwith all the accounts connected with them, are allcorrectand
right as they now stand. If then, the account which was made the ground
of transfer, is not the real account of Monson & De Forest & Son, (and
this is fully proved by the proper account itself,) then of course the entry
and transfer of it on 15th December, must inevitably be wrong on that
ground alone; and of course the corresponding entries in the new books,
must on the same ground be wrong also. (See ques. 21, 22 and 29.)
But in addition to this, [affirm that even if the account which was made the
ground of the original entry and transfer, had been in fact, the true and
proper account, still the original entry, in old books, as well as the corres
ponding entries in the new books, are inthemselves totally wrong in both sets
of books, not only on the principles of book-keeping and of law, but also in
reference to the rights of parties and accounts.
Before, however, I proceed to an investigation of the several grounds of
error in those entries, I wish to remark, that in the investigation of any sub
ject, a clear and distinct knowledge of the fads in the case, is all important
in leading to a correct decision upon it.
It will, therefore, be constantly borne in mind, that the parties to the con
cern of Monson tf De Forest tf- Son, are M. Monson on the one part, and
the late firm of De Forest & Son on the other, that it commenced in July,
1831, and its whole business was the Buenos Ayrean trade; that Monson
went out as agent for the concern in 1831, taking with him a credit from Bar-
ings,for 15,000 pounds, and another from T.Wilson & Co., for 5,000 pounds,
for the account of the concern, and another credit from Barings, for his own
private account for 5,000 pounds more ; but not having occasion to use the
latter for his private account, he used tbe whole amount, viz: 25,000 pounds
for the account of Monson & De Forest & Son; but however without the
knowledge of the fact at the time on our part, accordingly, our first remit
tances to Baring's, therefore were made on account of "the 5,000 pounds,
private credit to Monson, as will be seen by his proper account. Another
important fact must also be kept in mind, which is, that with the view to keep
the transactions in remittances, separate and distinct from the personal ac
count of Monson & De Forest & Son, an account was opened under the
title of remittance account, (as subsidiary to the account of Monson & De
Forest & Son,) to the debit of which, however, was actually placed, not on
ly all the remittances which were made for them, but also all that were made
for Monson's private account to meet the above 5,000 pounds, as appears not
only by remittance account, but also by Moiifoii's private account, old books.

L 17]
The importance of keeping these facts distinctly in view, will be appar
ent in the further investigation ofthe entries and accounts; but the first
use I make of them, is to show that the remittance account, (though on the
books a separate and distinct account from Monson & De Forest & Son ;
yet as such must on every principle of book-keeping, be kept as correcily
and truly, and be as regularly settled and closed as any personal account)
is merely subsidiary to the proper account of Monson &. De Forest & Son;
and that it was so considered by our book-keeper is evident from the fact,
that it was transferred to their proper account on the 10th December, by a
regular transfer entry. But as some of the remittances which had been charged
to Monson's private account had been transferred to the debit of tbe remit
tance account, before that account itself was transferred as above stated,
therefore it shows the direct connexion of Monson's private account in the
original entry of 15th December, old books, now under consideration. One
remark more seems proper as lo this entry, viz : the whole ground and ob»
ject of it was to transler the balance of the account of Monson & De Forest
& Son, from Ihe books of the old firm, to those of the new, (Ques. No. 23.)
Having by the foregoing statement of facts shown the connexion of Mon
son's private account, with the remittance account, and that ihe remittance ac
count although in fact, only a part of the actual account ol Monson & De For
est <f Son, must yet be, not only as correctly and truly kept as any personal
account ; but also settled and closed on the books, by a regular transfer of it
to their proper account. We are now prepared to enter upon the examina
tion of the entry of 15th December in the old books, and the severel parties
and accounts connected with it; and to see whether as that entry now
stands, they are actually right or not, on the principles of book-keeping, of
law, and of the rights of parlies and accounts, and let it be particularly no
ticed, that by the express terms and conditions of our articles of submission,
(See Page 5th.) It is enough for me to show, either that this entry or any
one or more of its items is wrong, or that either of the accounts, or any one
or more of the items in either of them is wrong; therefore, if but
one of the items in the entry, or but one of the items in any one of the
accounts is wrong; it is conclusive evidence, not only against my opponent,
but also against Ihedecision of the referees, and for the reason not only, that
such are the express terms and conditions of the articles of submission, but
for the all important reason also, that by the same articles, it is agreed that
the right or wrong of every item in these entries, and of every item in
in any ont ar more of any of the accounts named or connected with them,
is made the test of the right or wrong of all other similar entries in
both books. The great importance, therefore, of adhering strictly lo the
terms and conditions of the articles to the very letter, is obvious ; because,
though the error in any one of the above named cases, may be but trifling
in itself, yet as it is made the lest of the right or wrong of all the other en
tries in the books, which involve the same principles, it must necessarily af
fect the rights and interests of parties or accounts, not only in a vast multi
tude of cases, but to a very large amount.
And now, as M. Monson's private account, in the old books, was transfer
red from the old books to the new, before that of Monson & De Forest &
Son, I invite attention to that first. And here two facts appear, which at
least, seem calculated to excite fears and apprehension, as to the state of our
books generally. It will be reccollected thai Monson took to Buenos Ay res.
a credit from Barings, for his private account, of 5,000 pounds. On the 1st
January, 1832, we remitted for him, towards thatspecial credit, 1,000 pounds,
at 9 3-4 per cent., say $4,877 78, which Barings placed lo his individual
credit, 23d of same month, (See their account with him, Ap. O.) But this sum
has never been charged to Monson in our books at all to this day.
Again, on the 1st February, we remitted them for his account, 4,050
pounds at 10 per cent., say" $19,800, which with the previous 1,000
pounds, would cover that credit, together with 1 per cent, commission on
D

[18]
it ; and this sum was also placed by Barings to his individual account. Ana
this remittance also, was never charged to Monson, till 4th September fol
lowing. Here then, are two cases of omission to charge a party for remittances
made for his special account to the large amount of $24,677 78. And now
I ask, if such gross omissions have occurred in our case, is it not most
fearfully to be apprehended, that a vast many other similar omissions may
have occurred in other cases also. But it appears by Monson's proper ac
count, old books, that on ihe 4th September, (7 months afterwards,) he was
indeed charged with the $19,800, together with interest on it for 7 months,
$693, say in all, $20,493. But the particular reasons why this was then
done, and why at the same time the 1000 pounds with premium and inter
est, was nin also charged him, I have never to this day, been able, satisfac
torily to ascertain from our book-keeper. For both sums were remitted for
the same account and same purpose, vis: to meet the credit of 5,000 pounds,
which Monson took on his individual account. If, therefore, it was proper
on the 4th Septemoer to charge him the $20,493, was it not equally proper
to have charged him the other remittance, also with the interest on it? On
the other hand, if the book-keeper then knew that the 5,000 pounds had been
used by Monson for account of Monson & De Forest & Son, at Buenos
Ayres — why did he then charge him over the $20,493 ? But so the fact is,
he did so charge him that sum, and omitted to charge him the other ! And
on the next day, 5th September, he transferred the balance of his account
from the old books to the new, with that debit of $20,493, standing
to it.
And this account having been rendered Monson, he found the above charge
of $20,493, to be wrongly charged to him on the ground that he had used the
4,050 pounds, for account of Monson & De Forest & Son : accordingly, if
you turn to his account with the new firm, you will find under date of 22d
September, that he is there credited back this 20,493, in Ihe following ex
traordinary terms, viz: by "reverse this entry, 4th September, the same
having been used for joint account." And it will be remembered that my
opponents affirm, that this entry actually cancels the wrong debit to Monson,
4th September in the old books : and, therefore, that his accounts in both books
are all right as they now stand. But aside from the total falacy of such a
principle, it is worthy of remark, that in this entry, reference is had to an
entry of 4th September ; and which this entry was to reverse, but without
even an intimation that it existed in the books of another firm. And I here
ask, who but the person who made this entry, could for a moment even sup
pose, lhat it referred to a wrong entry in the books of another firm 7 Be
sides so far as regards Monson, this wrong debit to him in the old books, is
an affair between him and the late firm alone. He stands a debtor there to
that firm for the $20,493. How then can an entry in the books of the new
firm, which simply makes him a creditor there, actually cancel a wrong debit
to him in the books of the old firm, (No. 21, 22, and axioms,) on the con
trary, does it not leave Monson a wrong debtor still, on those books for the
$20,493 ; and can his account ever be correctly and legally settled and clo
sed, until he is discharged from that indebtness by a legal and proper en
try on those books? (See No. 21 and axioms.)
Again it appears by Barings account with Monson, under date of 30th
August, 1831, that he there has credit for the 510 pound, which we remitted
them for his account, 9th August. But although this sum and the interest
on it was credited back to Monson on the 30th May, 1832, on the ground,
(as that entry states)that it had been used for joint account.
Yet on the contrary it never was soused, nor did Barings ever transfer it,
(as they did another sum of 7231. 2s. 3d.,) from his account, to the credit
of Menson & De Forest & Son ; but it continued lo his credit on their books
down to the 30th June, 1832, and then served to make so much, and the in
terest on it, of the balance of 1,2532. 8s,, which Barings then owed him,
and which they transferred to the credit of Monson & De Forest & Son.

L 19 T
[See Ap.O.] Most manifestly then, Monson is still indebted to the old firm, for
the510 pounds at 10 1-4 per cent., together with the interest on it, from the 9th
August, down to the time when it shall be cliarged to him on these books.
But even as that entry of 30th May, on old books, now actually stands
there is 3 months, 2 days too much interest credited to Monson on the $2 -
499, which is $25 85, so that his account is wrong for this sum also, over
and above all the other errors in it.
With these remarks, the reader is left to judge whether Monson's private
account with the old firm, is right or not. as it now stands.
The next account to which we come in order, is remittance account in the
old books, by which it appears that, that account had credit on the 4th Sep
tember for the same 4,050 pounds at 10 per cent, or $19,800, (and interest
account credit for the $6P3) which at that time was charged Monson. But
it must be borne in mind that this debit to Monson, and credit lo these two
accounts was found to be wrong on the 22d September, and were then (as
my opponnents say) legally and properly reversed and cancelled by an en
try in the new hooks on that day. And, if this was so, pray, did not that
eniry also cancel this credit to remittance account, and to interest account,
and leave both those accounts just as if the credit to them in the old books of
the 4th September had never existed.
The importance of this question will be apparent from the fact, that on the
\0lh December following, this remittance account was actually transferred
to the proper account of Monson & De Forest & Son. But so far from then
considering and treating this credit of $19,800, as cancelled by the reverse
entry of 22d September, it appears by this transfer, that our book-keeper
then considered and treated it as a good and valid credit still, for he actually
transferred the balance only of lhat account, viz : $99,742 41 ; wheras if
that credit was cancelled, as my opponents affirm it was, the whole amount
of the remittance account, viz: $119,542 41, should have been transferred
instead of the balance only, (No. 32 and 33,) and the interest on that whole
account, should also then have been charged to it, and transferred with it.
Here then, it is seen, that although (on the principle of my opponents) a
final end had been put to this $19,800, and the $693, so far as regards not
only the interest account, but also, both the remittance account, and to
the account of Monson & De Forest & Son, (as they are admitted to be the
same in fact.)
Yet this $19,800 is now again made to serve as a good and valid credit to
remittance account, and as such, was actually deducted in transferring that
account on the 10th December, so that not only are Monson & De Forest &
Son actually debited $19,800 less than they ought to have been in the trans
fer of remittance account. But this latter account is actually still open and
unsettled (notwithstanding this transfer) and indebted still to the old firm for
this $19,800 ; and this too not only on the very ground here claimed by my
opponents (for if it was cancelled then the transfer was wrong.) But also
on the very opposite ground which I myself claim, viz : that as the credit of
this $19,800 to remittance 4th September, was wrong, remittance account
ought to have been debited back that sum on these books, 22d September,
and then the true balance of it would have been transferred on the 10th De
cember, instead of $19,800 short ; (See No. 27, 28, 29, 33, and axioms,) so
that not only on the very principles claimed by my opponents, but also on
the ground which I myself have constantly maintained, the remittance
account actually stands wrong for this $19,800, down to the present moment.
But this account is also wrong, because the whole interest which was actu
ally due on it, $7,521 87, ought on every principle to have been charged to
it, before it was transferred, which was not done, nor has it ever been charged
to Monson & De Forest & Son, on either set of books down to the present
moment. And now the reader will judge, whether on the principles of book
keeping, of law, and of the rights of parties and accounts, this remittance ac
count is actually right or not as it now stands on the books.

L 20 1
We will now take up the account which was made the ground and basis
of the entry and transfer of 15th December, which I call the transfer ac
count ; and by a comparison of it with the proper account of Monson & De
Forest & Son, which actually existed on the books on the day that entry
and transfer was made. See whether the account transferred is indeed the
real account of Monson # De Forest & Son or not. It is seen by the in
terest account, stated on their proper account, that instead of Monson <f De
Forest £ Son being indebted to this firm for a balance of interest, $6,585 28,
(as is stated on the occount transferred,) this firm actually owed them a bal
ance of interest of $725 42 as their proper account stood on the books on the
very day this entry and transfer was made: so then if this balance of in
terest, $725 42, had been credited to them, (as most clearly it ought to have
been,) before any transfer entry was made, there would thenhave been due on
the account only $74,357 61, instead of $75,083 03,which is actually transfer
red as the whole balance of their account; this transfer is wrong, therefore, in
this item alone, $725 42, even withoutcharging them the balance of interests
$6,585 28, which they owed on the occount which was transferred (if that is
right) or the $12 29 which they owed for postages. But it will be recollect
ed, that when the remittance account was transferred to their* proper account
on the 10th of December, the interest which was actually due on that account,
was not then charged to it. It was therefore not only proper, but necessary
beforethe entry and transfer of \blh Dec. was made, that this interest on the
whole of the debits to remittance account, should have been charged to the
proper account of Monson & De Forest & Son, which interest up to 31st Dec,
amounts to $7,521 87. And, as it appears by the postage book, that they
are also there indebted $12 29 for postages up to same date. It is equally
obvious, therefore, on every principle of book-keeping and law, that both
the above items should have been charged to them on the books, before this
entry and transfer was made. ^See axioms.) And as this firm were actually
indebted to them for a balance of interest on their proper account, up
to 31st December of $725 42, it is equally obvious that this item of inter
est ought to have been passed to their credit on the books, before any cor
rect or legal entry and transfer of the account of Monson & De Forest &
Son could ever be made.
And now with these facts, and those principles in our minds, and (if the
proper account of Monson & De Forest & Son is right,) with their pro
per account in our hands, it is at once perceived, not only, what was
the only correct and lefial way in which their account ever could be
"made up;" but also that the actual balance of it would have been
$81,891 77, instead only of $81,680 60, as the account transferred makes
it. It is perfectly apparent, therefore, that if the above entries had been made
on the transferred account before the transfer of it was made, that thejaetual
balance, even on that account itself, would have been $21117 more than it
was when it was trensferred. So then, even if it were admitted to be the
right account, (which I deny,) it would still be wrong for this sum of $211 17
in reference to these items alone. And the interst account is also wrong for
same amount; (because it would also then get $211 17, more credit than it
now has,) and again, this balance of $81,891 77 would be $6,808 75 more
than was actually trausferred as the whole balance of their account, by the
entry of the 15th December.
But in addition to all this, it will also be recollected that when the remit
tance account was transferred lo this account,10th December,that there was a
short transfer of that account for the sum of $19,S00 of the actual indebt-
ness of that account, because that sum was wrong credited to it 4th Septem
ber, so that before any legal and correct entry and transfer of the account of
Monson & De Forest <f Son could ever have been made, this sum also
ought to have been debited to their proper account on those books; and
in that case the actual balance, instead of $81,680 60, would have been

[21]
$101,691 77 and $26,608 74 more balance, than was actually transferred as
the balance, by the entry of the 15th December.
Having thus shown most undeniably how the proper account of Monson
& De Forest & Son actually stood, and the additional items which ought to
have been charged to it before the balance could be ascertained, or the
transfer entry of 15th December, could be legally and correctly made —
we are now prepared to examine the account which was actually made the
basis of the entry and transfer of 15th December, and to see how this ac
count is made up, and the materials of which it is composed. But let us
first enquire, what the principles of book-keeping, of law, and the rights of
parties require, in drawing oft and making oul an account, whether the
object be a mere transfer of the account, or to render it to the party, and I
trLst every book-keeper and merchant will agree, that those principles and
rights all require, that every account drawn from the books, should contain
all ihe specific items of debit and credit in their regular order and date, as
they stand on the books, and no more, and no less ; and that any account made
up of items, differing from the spicific ones, or to which, items are added,
which were not in the proper account, or which left out items, which were
in it, would not be a correct and legal account, for any purpose whatever ;
any more than if it was made up merely of amounts in figures, without
mention of a single item, matter or thing, as the ground of debit or credit !
But instead of this, it is seen that the account which is made the ground and
basis, of the entry and transfer of the 15thT December — is made up, in the
following novel and most extraordinary manner, viz, a small part only of
the debit side of the account transferred, is taken from a part only of the
debit side of the proper account of Monson & De Forest & Son, leaving out
on the debit side of it one item of $99,742 41, which was in the proper
count, and adding to it, one of $12 29, which isnot'm it; and these parts of the
debit side of the account transferred it will be noticed, are not the regular items
of debit, as they appear on the proper account ; but consist in part, of differ
ences between the debits and credits, and partly in dtductions from items of
credit, and partly ofthe proper items themselves. (See statement Ap. H.) And
all the remaining part of the debit side of the account transferred, is made
up in part from all the items, of the debit side of remittance account, which
account had been settled by transfer 10th December, (see that account,) and
in part by a distinct charge of 1 per cent, commission on all the separate
items of remittance account, (except one of $2,499,) none of which com
missions, however, are charged at all in the remittance account ; but all of
which (including 1 per cent, on the said $2,499) are charged in their proper
account; and on the other hand, a part only of the credit side of the ac
count transferred, is taken fiom a part only of the credit side of the pro
per account of Monson & De Forest & Son, and these parts also are not
the regular items of credit as they appear on their proper account, but con
sist in part of like differences and deductions as above mentioned, and part
ly of the regular items ; (See Ap. I ;) and the remaining part, say $19,800
is taken again, (as most certainly it would seem,) from the credit side of
the remittance account. Although that very credit, it will be remembered,
(as my opponents affirm,) was actually cancelled in the remittance account
by the entry in new books on the 22d September, more than three months
before. And, although it had in the transfer of remittance account, only
five days before, been there again used, just as if it had not been so cancel
ed ; yet, as I have just stated, it is here used again, the second time, after it
was so cancelled, by placing it to the credit of this transfered account. A
most convenient instrument truly, to aid in " making up" accounts.
But inconsistent and opposed as this is, to every principle of book-keeping
and law— distructive as it also is to the rights of parties, and dangerous as
such powers must be, in the hands of a book-keeper to all proprietors of
books, vet these dangers and those consequences will be still more apparent,
on a closer examination of the credit of the $19,800 lo the transferred ac-
E

L22]
count. For it will be borne in mmd that the book-keeper was making Up
this transferred account, as the real and true account of Monson & De for
est & Son, on the old books, for the purpose of transfer on the 15th Decem
ber, and (as just stated,) it would certainly seem that the above credit of
$19,800 must have been taken from the credit side of remittance account,
because that item does not appear in the old books at all, except in the en
try which placed it to the credit of remittance account on the 4th of Sep
tember. Yet strange as it may appear, if you look at the credit to the
transferred account, under date of 15th December, you there see it express
ly stated to be, a " transfer with M. Monson, September 22d,4050 pounds,
10 per cent. $19,800." meaning, most undoubtedly, the credit which
was given to Monson, for this very item in the books of the new firm, on
the 22d September previous, and which (please notice) is there debited to
Monson & De Forest & Son ; but which is here, actually credited to them,
in this transferred account.
Here then you have a specimen of the prihciples (literally reduced to
practice) which our book-keeper (under direction of Mr. Burrill) has adopt
ed, not only in making up accounts, but on which our books have been kept,
ever since the dissolution of the old and commencement of the new firm.
And when I reflect on the disastrous consequences which must necessari
ly result from the application of such principles, and the actual condition in
which the affairs, business, books and accounts of each of our firms must ne
cessarily be placed by such a system of keeping them, my forebodings do
indeed awaken both apprehension and fear. And when, moreover, I con
sider that these principles, and this method of keeping our accounts, are not
only claimed to be legal and right on the part of my partner, but are actual
ly adjudged to be so, both by the referees and a distinguished lawyer, after a
full investigation of them, lam indeed filled with astonish ment, and ask myself
is this possible? Have I been a merchant thirty years, and yet do I indeed
know so little of the principles of book-keeping, of law, and of the rights
of parties and accounts !
But let us just look at this operation, and the facts connected with it,
again. On the 15th December, when this transferred account was making
up, this item of $19,800 stood thus on the books, viz: It was to credit of
remittance account, 4th September, old books, but that credit my oppo
nents affirm, was cancelled by the debit of it to Monson & De Forest &
Son, on the 22d September, in the new books ; on the 10th December, how
ever, it is again considered a good credit still to remittance account, and in
the transfer of that account to the proper account of Manson & De Forest
& Son, it is actually again used to reduce the balance of that account for
that very amount, and now here again, when this transferred account was
made up, on the 15th December, it is not only arbitiarily used again, but
is absolutely placed to the credit of that account, instead of its debit, al
though it stands to the debit of Monson, De Forest & Son, in the entry of
22d September, froii whence it was actually declared to be taken 1 while
again it is not to the debit of their proper account at all in the old books-..
What a commentary indeed, does all this afford, not only on the principles
of book-keeping and law, but on the rights of parties and accounts ! But
there are yet one or two facts more to mention in relation to this transferred
aceount. It is seen, that on the 10th December, when the balance of remittance
account was transferred, it contained as before stated, no charge of
commission of 1 per cent, for remitting ; and it is. also seen that this item of
commissision, on the whole amount of that account, was on that very datf
debited to the proper account of Monson, De Forest & Son, on. the books,
in a single item, of $1,195 43, and yet in the account transferred (made up
it will be remembered, only five days afterwards,) the 1 per 'cent, com
mission, is added to each specific item of debit, thus taken from the remit
tance account, (except on the one of $2,499) just as if it constituted a part
of an original entry in remittance account, while no such items of debit,,

L23]
appear at all in that account. And the above commission of 1 per cent.
which was actually charged Monson, De Forest & Son, in their proper
account, in a single item of $1,195, 43, actually did include the 1 per cent.
m the above $2,499, and therefore, besides these discrepances makes the
charge in the proper account, $25 more than in the transferred account.
And again, it is also seen by the proper account of Monson, De Forest &
Son, that none of the items, on which the balance of interest of $6,585 28
in the transferred account arose, appear at all, in their proper account ; but
on the contrary so far from their proper account showing any such fact, as
their being indebted to this firm for a balance of interest, on that account
made up on the 15th December, their proper account, made up to same pe
riod, shews, that the late firm actually owed them, a balance of interest at
that very time, of $725 42.
And besides, although this transferred account purports to charge over to
Monson, De Forest & Son, all the interest which was due on remittance ac
count, yet no interest at all is charged in it, on the item of $2,499, although
it was actually due on it, just the same as on all the other items, for 16 months
22 days, amounting to $211 17, so that the balance of interest as stated
on the account transferred is wrong, even as that was made up, for this sum
of $211 17, while at same time it is not even intimated in this transferred
account, that the items on which this large balance of interest arose, were
taken at all from the remittance account.
Again it is seen by the account transferred, that the balance of interest
staled to be due on it, say $6,585 28, was in the transfer entry ofthe 15th Dec.
then actually charged, not to Monson & De Forest & Son, but to De Forest
& Son, new firm. This, therefore, is not only a totally wrong charge
against the new firm, but a fatal omission also in making up and ascertain
ing the actual balance of the account of Monson & De Forest & Son, the
transfer of which balance was the whole object of this entry aud transfer;
[See Ques. 23] and finally as a further proof that the account transferred is
not the true and proper account of Monson & De Forest & Son as it stood on
the old books, 15th December, I affirm that it is indeed merely an account
" made up" on paper only, and more than nine tenths of which is composed of
items,matters and things which in their description do not appear at all in their
proper account, and that no such account exists at all with Monson & De For
est (f Son on these books. And for proof of allthis, I refer to statements Ap
pendix H and I, and to the proper account of Monson & De Forest & Son,
as drawn from the books, and certified to be correct word for word and figure
for figure, and also to the books themselves.
The next thing in order to be examined, is the entry of the 15th December,
old books, which was made from the account, thus wrongfully made up. —
And now let us see, whether tliat in itself, is right or not, even though
it should be admittea, that the -account on which it is predicated was right.
But in order to prevent misapprehension in regard to it, it is necessary to state
that there is an item of $1,808 47 incorporated in this entry, which has no con
nection whatever with the account of Monson & De Forest <f Son, which is
pretended to be transferred by this entry ; and this fact is apparent from the
description of the item itself, wherein it is stated to be for an allowance by the
new firm of sundry commissions charged on sales made by them, for account
of Monson & De Forest & Son, so that instead of having any connexion, either
with the account of Monson <f De Forest <f Son, old books, or with this
transfer of ii; it is in fact a transfer from the commission account in
the new books, of so much commissions allowed to be returned, not to Mon
son & De Forest & Son, but to the old firm. It is therefore, perfectly ob
vious, that this item has nothing to do with the account of Monson & De
Forest & Son, old books, or with this pretended transfer of it to the new
books. And here it is proper to say, that the entry of this item, and the
allowance of this $1,808 47 return of commissions in favor of the old firm,
was made without my knowledge or consent ; and I wholly object to any

L 241
such allowance being made, and as a partner in both firms, and as a proprie
tor in both sets of books, I disavow it and protest against it; andtne r gnt
and power to do this, I claim not only from the nature of things, but on
every principle of common safety, common sense and law, to be mnereni
in every partner or proprietor of books; and that too, not only against his
book-keeper, but also against even a partner and every other person-and u
this be not so, then may any book-keeper or partner at any time, make away
with, and irrevocably dispose of, all ones property without his consent. Any
special reasons for objecting to this allowance in the present case are deemed
unnecessary. Having now shown that the item of $1,808 47 has no con
nection with this transfer of the balance of the account of Monson & De
Forest & Son, and that it is totally wrong in itself, (See Ques. Mo. dO, also
Axioms.) With this explanation, your attention is invited first, to the gen
eral declaration ofthe entry, viz : that De Forest & Son, new firm, are debt
ors to the late firm, for sundries to amount of 81,680 60 ; and this amount
it will be noticed, is (acording to the account made up) the actual balance
which ought to have been transferred. Then secondly, to its declaration as
to the first item in it, viz : that Monson & De Forest & Son are creditors in
it for the balance of their account, which it declares to be only $75,083 02,
instead of $81,680 60, as the account and entry both show. Now, n must
be remembered, that the whole object of this entry was to transfer the bal
ance, which Monson & De Forest & Son owed to the late firm. And the
simple question here, is, does this part of the entry do that ? And is the fact
here stated, that the balance is transferred, itself true ? And can any entry
be sustained, either on the principles of book-keeping, or law, which is not
true in itself, and which fails to do what it purports to do? I therefore,
claim this whole transfer' entry to be wrong for the whole $81,680 60, not
only for the reasons above stated, but also, because it leaves the account of
Monson & De Forest & Son still open on the books, and legally indebted for
the whole amount of interest, $6,585 28, even as the transferred account
itself, and this entry both stand. Again, suppose that in addition to these
omissions, this entry had actually transferred only one half of the principal
of this account, would not Monson & De Forest &Son have stood legally
indebted still for the remaining half? and are they any the less indebted
then for the above items, than they would be in the latter case, I See No. 1,
2, 3, and Axioms.]
The next declaration in this entry is, that De Forest & Son, new firm, are
debtors to Charges account "for postages," which itself states are "due
from" Monson & De Forest & Son " collected" $12 29. It is natural to en-
quii e here, if then these postages are due from Monson & De Forest <f Son.
On what principle either of book-keeping, or of law, are De Forest & Son,
new firm, indebted for them 1 'I will not stop here to enquire what is really
maant by the declaration, that it had been " collected".) I therefore claim,
tnat this part of the entry also, is totally wrong for that sum ; and besides,
these postages I affirm never have been charged to the proper account of Mon
son, Do Forest & Son in the old books at all ! The last declaration in the
entry, is that De Forest & Son, new firm, are debtors to interest account, for
" amount due these books," from Monson & De Forest & Son, " made up
this day" $6,585 28; On what principle, then I ask, either of book-keeping,
law, or the rights of parties, are De Forest & Son, new firm, charged with
this balance of interest, which the very entry itself, declares to be due from
Monson & De Forest & Son, on an account made up on that day. Besides
again, not a particle of this balance of interest has ever been charged to the
account of Monson, De Forest & Son on either set of books to this day.
And here (it would seem) several important considerations must necessari
ly press upon the mind of every book-keeper or merchant, in looking at this
entry, for it is perfectly obvious on every principle of both book-keeping
and law, that every entry which is made in books, must be predicated on facts,
and at least be true in itself, otherwise it is not only wrong, but can really

L25|
have no legal effect whatever on any of the parties or accounts named in ii
(See Ques. 13, 14, 15, and Axioms.) ,
Again, whenever the balance of an account is to be transferred, whether
fiom one account to another, or from one set of books lo another, the whole
of the items, for which the party or account is legally indebted, must be
first debited to the proper account, in the proper names of the party or ac
count on the books, in order, not only lo ascertain what the true bal
ance is ; but so also, that the account as it stands on the books, shall cor
respond exactly in all its items, amounts and balance, with ihe account
which is transfer-red ; for if the account as it stands on the books differs
from the account tiansferred, either in any of its specific items of debit or
credit, or in its amount of balance, or does not contain all the items which
actually belong to it, then the transfer entry itself must necessarily
be wrong; and the account which actually exists on the books will still re
main open, and can never be legally settled and closed, until all such items
are so charged to it, (See 14, 15, 16, and Axioms.)
But in addition to all the foregoing facts and arguments, which (as I hum
bly apprehend) go so fully to prove the many palpable errors in fact, which
appear not only on the face of ihe entry itself, but more or less also, in all
the accounts connected with it; and which, therefore, prove the whole of
the entry and transfer itself to be totally wrong. I venture unequivocally
to affirm, that even if all the accounts had been right, and if the account
which was transferred, had been the right account, (which I wholly deny)
and if the entry and transfer itself had been right. Yet, even admitting all
this, I affirm lhat any transfer of the account of Monson, De Forest & Son
whatever at the time this was done, if ever so correctly made, would have
been not only premature and improper, but worse than useless,and for the fol
lowing reasons, viz: The concern of Monson, De Forest & Son, was esta
blished between the late firm and Monson in July, 1831 ; each having a joint
equal interest, and under the express understanding and agreement, that the
the former were to be the general and the only agents of the concern at
New- York, to put in operation, and manage all the affairs and business of Ihe
concern, in relation to every thing connected with it, or that should arise
from, or grow out of it ; and as such agents, were to superintend and ar
range the provision of all necessary funds, make all the shipments, receive and
dispose of all returns and property, and to keep on their own books, all the
accounts of the concrn. And when the concern should cease, to adjust and
bring to a final settlement and close on their books, all the affairs and busi
ness of that concern, and to account to M. Monson, for his equal half of the
profit or loss of the same.
And it was also understood and agreed between the parties, that Monson
was to be the special agent of said concern ; to go out to the Rio de La
Plata, and there to make purchases and shipments of produce, &c. for them ;
and for which purpose he was furnished by the late firm with a Charte
Blanche power of attorney ; and it was equally understood and agreed, that
on his return from that country, he should as agent as aforesaid, render his
accounts to the late firm, of all his transactions abroad, for and on account of
said concern ; so that as general agents, they might be enabled to settle and
close the whole business of the concern. None of these facts will be disputed.
As the first proof then, that it was not only premature, but unnecessary and
worse than useless, to make any transfer of the account of Monson, De For
est & Son at the time this was done. I also state the following additional
facts, none of which either, I trust, will be disputed. And the first is, that
down to the time when that transfer was made, Mr. Monson had not rendered
any account whatever to the late firm, or to either of its surviving partners,
of his transactions and business at the Rio de La Plata as the special agent
of that concern, although he disposed of property and bills of exchange, and
made investments to the amount of near $200,000
And exebpt that the usual invoices have accompanied the shipments from

[26 1
time to time made by him, I here affirm, that all the affairs and business
of that concern, so done by him, remained entirely open, unadjusted and un
settled, down to the time of that transfer ; and so far as I know, remain so
still, down lo the present moment. What possible use then in transferring
their account, until all these accountsjare first settled on those books, [See
Axioms.] Again, it will be seen by the proper account of Monson, De Forest & Son
with the new firm, that almost all the property shipped by Monson, as agent
of that concern, came to hand after the dissolution of the late -firm, and
commencement of the new one, and that at the very moment when that
transfer of their account from the old books was made; the new firm
were actually indebted to the concern of Monson, De Forest & Son on their
account with them, more than $82,000, arising as their account shows, al
most entirely from sales made by thein, not as partners in the concern of
Monson, De Forest & Son, it will be noticed, noi yet as agents for the late
firm of De Forest & Son, but simply and only as commission merchants,
and agents for the concern of Monson, De Forest & Son. I here affirm, that
as such agents and commission merchants, they are yet, notwithstanding as
much bound to render their accounts of sales and accountcurrent, and to hold
themselves responsible to the late firm, who alone were, and are the general
agents of that concern, as either Mr. Monson himself as agent for it, or
Barings of London, or any other house who had done business for them,
were bound to render their accounts, and hold themselves responsible to
them. And here it is proper for me to remark, that being deprived of the means
of ascertaining, I am utterly unable to state how many more cases, similar
to that of M. Monsons, may have existed, and of a greater or less magnitude
where the accounts of parlies who had done business for Monson, DeForest &
Son, had not at lhat time been rendered to the late firm. There are, how
ever, two cases to which I am enabled to refer, viz : ihe account which is open
ed with Baring, Brothers & Co. in the new books, and also the account of Bar
ings with Monson, De Forest & Son, (Barings own account both with the
old firm and the new, it has not been in my power to obtain.)
And now turn to the account of Baring, Brothers & Co. with Monson,
De Forest & Son, and it is seen that they transferred the balance of 84
pounds 18 shillings, which they owed latter, up to 4th August, 1832, to the
credit, not of the new firm it will be noticed, but of the late firm on their
books. Now I ask, can either the account of Baring, Brothers & Co.,
or the account of Monson, De Forest & Son with the old firm, ever be settled
and closed,until the above transactions are placed to their respective ascounts
on the old books. [See 22 and Axioms.] Yet, turn now to the account of
Barings on new books, and you see them therecharged for this very transfer,
$377 33, just as if it was a transaction between them and the new firm, and
Monson, De Forest & Son, have credit in same entry for the same thing.—
Again, it is also seen oy Barings account, new books, that with the exception
of the single item of a transfer on the 27ih May, of the balance due them
by the old firm, and an item of interest of $15 79, every other item
of both debit and credit in this whole account, relates solely and entirely, to
the business and affairs of a vessel and voyage concern, between the old firm
and Captain Ricketson. And here again I ask, can the accounts and the con
cern between Captain Ricketson and the old firm, or the account between
them and Barings, ever be settled and closed, until all these transations
are placed to their respective proper accounts, on the old books. [See 22
and Axioms.]
With all these facts in view, therefore, I hesitate not to affirm, 'that until
M. Monson, the special agent of the concern of Monson, De Forest & Son,
shall have rendered his accounts with that concern to the late firm, and un
til De Forest & Son, new firm, Baring, Brothers & Co., and every other
personor party, who at the time of the transfer of 15th December, or since.

,12?|
have any open and unsettled accounts with Monson, De Forest & Son shall
also have rendered their accounts to the late firm, and until all those accounts
matters and things, shall have been regularly and correctly placed to the
respective accounts of all those parties, and Monson, De Forest & Son, on
the books ofthe late firm; that none of these accounts, nor the account and
estate of our late partner, James Gould, nor yel the books themselves of the
old firm, can ever be legally settled and closed. And, therefore, I further
hesitate not to affirm, that the pretended transfer of the balance of Monson,
De Forest & Son's account from the old books to the new, 15th December,
was not only premature but unnecessary, improper and worse than useless.
For the foregoing, among other reasons which might be named, therefore,
las a partner in both firms, not only now do, but ever have from the moment
I first saw that entry, claimed it to be wrong, not only in iis several parts,
but also altogether ; and on every principle both of book-keeping and law,
and in reference also to the rights and interests of all the parties and ac
counts named in it, or connected with it. [See Ques. 24, 25, 26, and 30.]
And now, before entering on the examination^ the corresponding en
tries in the new books, let us look at the several accounts in these books, with
which this enlry is connected, and see whether, on ihe principles of book
keeping, of law, and of the rights of parties and accounts, they are actual
ly right or not, and whether they are correctly and legally settled and closed
or not, as they now stand on these books— for if not, then they also must be
wrong. It has already been shown that M. Monson's private account stood
wrong debited on these books at the time this entry and transfer was made
$20,493 ; and it has also been shown that remittance account stood
wroug credited at same time $19,800, and that the balance only of remit
tance account, after deducting this wrong credit, was transterred to the pro
per account of Monson, De Forest & Son on the 10th December, so that
the remittance account, actually stood wrong also for the $19,800, at the
time this entry and transfer of 15th December was made : and that, too,
aside from the error in omitting to debit it with 1 per cent, commission for
remitting ; and also all the interest actually due on those remittances before
the remittance account was transferred.
And now in reference to the proper account of Monson, De Forest & Son,
it is seen by this account as it actually stood on the books, on the day the
entry and transfer of 15th December was made, that there was a balance of
interest actually due from il to Monson, De Forest & Son of $725 42,
which ought to have been credited to it, before the entry and transfer of it,
15th December was made ; and not having been done, this account, therefore
•tood wrong for that s,um at that time. [See Ques. 8, 9, 10, 11, and Axioms. j
It has been shown also, that the interest which was actually due on remit
tances, was not charged to remittance account before that account was trans
ferred. This interest, onghl^herefore, to have been debited_ to the proper ac
count of Monson, De Forest & Son, before the entry and transfer of 15th De
cember was made ; and as this interest which amounts to $7,521 87, was not
so charged them, therefore their accouut stood wrong also for this sum, at
the time the entry and transfer of 15th December was made.
And it has also been shown that at the time this entry and transfer was made,
Monson, De Forest & Son, were indebted lo this firm for postages, $ 12 29,
which were not then charged to their proper account. Their account stood;
wrong, therefore, for this sum also, when the entry and transfer of the 15th
December was made. And in reference'to interest account, it is seen by the de
bit to Monson of 4th September, that interest account had credit for the in
terest on the $19,800 from the 1st of February, to first September. $693,
And it is also seen, that in the account transferred, interest is charged to
Monson, De Forest & Son on this same item, included in the 10,000 pounds,
from 1st February to 31st December, so that interest account, therefore,
gets credit twice in these books for the same thing, and is therefore, wrong
credited for that sum, $693. It is also seen by the credit to his ac-

[28|
Count, 30th May, that he has 3 months two days too much credit on $2,499,
say, $25 85, and of course, interest account is wrong debited for same
amount. And again, in the account transferred, it is seen that interest
was omitted to be charged Monson, De Forest & Son, on the above $2,499
from 9th of August to 31st December, say 16 months 22 days, amounting to
$211 17. Therefore, interest account is short credited for this sum, even
on the transferred account, so that as the=e books now stand, and supposing
even that the transferred account was right, the interest account on them is
actually wrong in each of these particulars also. And in reference to this
whole debit to De Forest & Son, new firm in the entry of 15th December,
as every account stated in it is manifestly not only incorrect, but untrue ; and
as, on every principle of bookkeeping and law, every entry in books, which
is contrary to truth and fact, must be wrong. Therefore, this debit to De For
est & Son new firm, is wholy wrong for the whole amount of that entry,
$81,680 60! And this, I, as a partner in boih firms, have constantly claim
ed, from the moment I first saw this entry, and in virtue of my rights as a
partner, I do now, as I constantly have done, wholy disdain*, and disavow
this whole entry ; and for my right to do so, I appeal not only to the princi
ples of book-keeping and law, but also to the principles of common sense
and common security. And where I ask, would be our security, when
errors are made in our books; when parties or accounts are debitsd with
things which they never had ; and, when the entries which are made in
books are proved by themselves, not to be true ! Where I ask is our security,
against ignorance or design in a book-keeper; and against constant exposure
to injury disgrace and ruin. If a partner has not the right, not only to disa
vow and disclaim every such wrong entry, bnt also to cancel, correct, and
put it right ? | See Ques. 30.]
We now come lo the corresponding transfer entries in the new books ; and
here it is necessary to remark, that the items which rela'e alone to the trans
fer of the account of Monson, De Forest & Son, from the old books, are
placed in two separate entries in these books It will also be remem
bered that in the transfer entry in the old books, there is an item
of commission, say $1,808 47, which had no connection whatever with
the account of Monson, De Forest & Son in those books, or with the trans
fer of it, and therefore, was left out in lhat examination. For the same rea
son, therefore, the item of commission of $203 36 in the firsl of these en
tries, and of $1,605 11 in the second, must also be left out, in the examina
tion < if these entries. . .
/¦There is also\n the first of these entries an ilem of balance "of interest
on an account made up" of $4,096 51, which l\ffirm has no connection
whatever, with the itafcount of Monson, De Forest SSon, in the old books,
which account aloihSfh^y/iW be noticed, is ihe sutiectWthe transfer entry
>ip old books, and/w the\corresponding transfer entriesV^n these books.
There is also incorporated in the first of these corresponding entries a
charge against Monson, De Forest & Son of $4,697 25, which I affirm has
no connection whatever, either with the transfer entry in the old books, or
with these corresponding entries in the new books. But as 1 shall have occa
sion to go into a full examination of this charge, when I come to speak ofthe
proper account of Monson, De Forest & Son, and of the interest account
in the new books, I have only to remark here, that this very charge itself,
furnishes on the face of it, most conclusive proof that it has not, inasmuch i
as it declares them, to be indebted for this $4,697 25 to the new firm, for a
balance of interest due them, "on an account made up" and which account
itself | See Ap. Q] is altogether a different account from the one which was
transferred, and the balance of interest stated to be due on it, is a totally diffe
rent matter and thing, from the balance of interest which is stated to be
due to the old firm, on the account which was transferred. [See Ques. 13.]
While again, the balance of interest, which, in the account transferred, is
stated io be due to the old firm, say $6,585 28, actually constitutes and

| 29]
makes part of the transfer entry in the old books. And the very same item
also constitutes and makes part of the corresponding entries in the new
books, so that these entries together, whether right or wrong, entirely finish
and complete, the transfer of Monson, De Forest & Son's account, from the
old, to the new books ; and therefore, this charge against them in the new
books for the $4,697 25, balance of interest on another account, cannot in
the nature of things, have any thing whatever to do with the transfer entry
in the old books,or with the corresponding transfer entries in the new books.
[See Ques. 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16.]
And yet it is, on this very charge almost alone, so far as I have been able
from first to last to understand, that all my opponents seem principally to rely,
to prove not only these transfer entries to be all right, but all other entries m
both sets of books to be right also. This argument commenced with that
master of the art and science of book-keeping, Mr. John E. Burrill, as may
be seen by the reluctant and evasive reply, which he gave to my question,
No. 7, to which I invite particular attention. Look at it, read it attentively.
The question put to him is very simple and plain ! Yel, as a book-keeper, it
so pressed him, that he could not at first, give a direct answer. Hear him —
" This interest, viz : $6,585 28, together with the balance of the account
was charged in the original entry to the new firm /" Well, and does not
this very charge then, whether right or wrong, actually constitute the
transfer entry in the old books — and does not the balance of an account,
embrace the interest, as well as the principal ? [See Ques. 11, and Axioms. |
What next? why — "they," the new firm, "¦then transferred the whole of
the said account to their own books!" Well, now look at the coresponding
transfer entries in the new books, and are they not full and complete corres
ponding entries? And, if they are right, do they not entirely complete the
transfer of Monson, De Forest & Son's account, from the old books to the
new ? But in the view of this master of book-keeping something more must
be done yet. And what was it?— why then, "they made it," (the account,)
" up entire with the interest on it.,' What account pray ? Do not be de
ceived reader ; it is not the account of Monson, De Forest & Son with the
old firm, which had already, just been transferred, which, they, the new firm,
"then made up" — no, that account is now done with, and laid aside, in
this most singular operation ; and a new account is " made up entire, with
the interest on it"— and what aecount is this ? Why it is a blended account,
comprising parts only, of the accounts of Monson, De Forest & Son, in the
books of bothfirms, [See Ap. Q,] and this account does indeed, show a bal
ance of interest to be due on it, of $4,697 25— and what if it does ? Has
this balance of interest on this blended account, any thing at all to do either
with the account transferred, or with the $6,585 28 balance of interest due
upon il ! [See Ques. 13 to 16 and Axioms, | both of which, as Mr. Burrill
himself, herejexpressly states, had already been wholly transferred, from the
old books to the new, by entries which he here fully describes. And which
entries, in fact as well as by his own account of them, whether right or
wrong, are in themselves entire and complete, both as transfer entries in the
old books, and as corresponding entries in the new books, not only without
anv reference to, or connection with, this charge of $4,697 25. But wholly,
and entirely independant of it. But reader, you have also, his own declara
tion to show vou, what this charge of $ 4,697 25, for " balance of interest, on
an acconnt made up," actually is— and what Is it ? Look at my question,
No. 7. I here ask him, whether or not, the $6,585 28, balance of interest,
on the account which was transferred, had ever been charged to Monson,
De Forest & Son, on the old books! And he answers, that interest appears
in said books, the new books it will be seen he means, to the debit of
said Monson, De Forest & Son— less a balance in their favor, from transac
tions with the new concern. .
Here then you have it under Mr. Burrills own hand, that this charge is ac
tually nothing more nor less, than simply the difference, between the ba-

I 30 1
lance of interest, which Monson, De Forest & Son, owed the old firm, on
their account, which had already been transferred, and the balance ot inte
rest which the new firm owed them, on their account with them ; and what
if it is ?— suppose, even that there had not already been, any transfer of
their account, would the fact that there was such a difference, between the
balance of interest which the new firm owed them, and what they, owed
the old firm for balance of interest, actually constitute and make that differ-
ence, a matter of indebtedness, on the part of Monson, De Forest & Son to
the new firm ? But, especially I ask— what has that difference, or this charge
of it here, at all to do, with the transfer of their account from the old books
to the new, and when that transfer, whether right or wrong, had already
been rendered complete by regular transfer entries in the old , books, and
by corresponding transfer entries in the new books. Having now ex
plained Mr. Burrill's own statement of the whole transfer of this ac
count. And shown by his own declarations, what this bdlance of $4,697 25
actually is— and how also, in the conjuration of his own imagination,
it not only forms a part of these transfer entries themselves, but is itself the
very instrument, which is to make the whole of these entries; all of which,
in both sets of books, he admits to be wrong, [See Ques. 17 to 21,] to be
all right again, by charging this difference to Monson De Forest & Son, in
the new books. I defer any further remarks upon it, till I come to the ac
count of Monson, De Forest & Son, in the new books. It is, however, pro
per to state here, that the very same principles in reference to this charge,
of $4, 697 25 to Monson, De Foiest & Son, and to these transfer entries,
were also adopted and maintained, and the same explanations given of it, by
Mr. Thomas, our book keeper, as will be seen by his answers to questions
put to him on the proper account of Monson, De Forest & Son, [Ap. P,]
although, at the same moment, he also certifies, that the balance of in
terest, $1,888 03, which the new firm owed them, at the very time this
charge of $4,096 51 was made against them for this balance of interest on
the blended account, was actually due and owing,/roro the new firm, to them,
on tlieir proper account, as drawn off, with an interest account stated on it,
also al that very time, and that, that balance of interest $1,888 03 had not been
credited to them on the books of the new firm, down to the 23d March, fol
lowing, and, 1 add, never must be, on the principles on which this charge is
made. But to see whether it must be, [See* Axioms, and questions on the
account, [Ap. P.] And the same principles have also been asserted, and con
stantly maintained — the same explanations uniformly-given — and the same
arguments continuallyurged, so far as 1 ever have been able to understand, by
all others, who have opposed my opinions, from first to last> not excepting the
referees and the lawyer they consulted. And on these, do they chiefly lely
for proof, that not only this charge and these entries, but all others, in both
sets of books, are all right.
Having thus shown what are the real views and opinions of my opponents,
in reference to this charge of $4,096,51, and that they claim and insist
that it actually does, correct, and make right, not only the transfer entry
in the old books, which is wrong, but also the corresponding transfer entries
in the new books, which are also wrong. And "having also shown, what
part of these two entries are to be omitted in the examination of them,we are
now prepared to examine the corresponding entries. But as the private
account of M. Monson, new books is connected with these entries, we will
first see whether that account is right or wrong as it stands on these'
books. A credit is seen on this account, (See Ap. L,) under date 'of 22d Sept., for
$20,463, and the reader is requested to examine that entry, and see whether
from the facts stated in it, he can possibly understand what it means — Does
it mean to reverse itself? What is it that has been used ?— and for whose
joint account? The book-keeper, indeed, when called upon to explain it,
says the entry reversed by it, is a wrong debit to Mr. Monson, in the old
books; and if so, pi ay, does this entry reverse the entry in the other

[31]
books? — does not this very fact prove, that it is a matter with which this
firm has no possible concern ? And must I, as a partner in this new firm be
compelled to take, any one party as a debtor, and to receive any one party
as a creditor to it, whom our book-keeper may either ignorantly or wilfully,
and without my knowledge or consent, and against my will, constitute
such, by entries in our books? — Is this consistent with the rights of parlies,
and of ihe proprietors of books? And, navel not, as a partner a right lo disa
vow and cancel such entries ? | See Ques. 30.] I did indeed, not only disavow
this entry from the moment I first discovered it, and pronounced it wrong,
but I presented it to the referees as a prominent proof, that the books were
wrong, and I insisted it was so, not only as a partner in the new firm, but also
as one of the concern of Monson, De Forest & Son ; and as a partner in
the late firm, the rights and interests of all of whom are affected by this en
try; but all to no purpose — they still decided it was right! But where, I ask,
is our security, if our rights and interests are to be absolutely concluded, or
taken from us, by any entry which our book-keepers may either ignorantly
01 wilfully make in our books.
For the following, among other reasons, therefore, I still claim this credit
to Monson to be wrong; because it not onjy makes parties new debtors, and
new creditors to this firm, for a large amount, without my knowledge or
consent, and for matters and things, in which this firm have no possible inter
est or concern. But, further, it violates also the principles of book-keeping
and law, and the rights of parties and accounts, in that it does not accomplish
what it purports to do ; viz., it does not reverse and cancel the wrong entry
in the old books, and it declares parties to be debtors and creditors to the
new firm, for a specific matter or thing, for which they are not, and in the
nature of things cannot be, except with the knowledge and consent of all tlie
parties to it. May it not therefore, with confidence be asked, where is law
to be found, which will compel Monson, De Forest & Son to pay this firm
the amount here charged to them ? — or this-firm to pay Monson the amount
here credited to him 1— when from the moment I first saw the entry, and
ever since, as a partner in this firm, and in the concern of Monson De Fo
rest & Son, as well as the late firm, I not only pronounced it wrong, and
protested against it— but when also the very facts stated in this entry are
wholly untrue in themscles, viz., Monson, De Forest & Son do not owe this
firm this $20,493 for the matters and things here charged them ; nor do the
new firm owe M. Monson this $20, 463, for the matters and things, for
which he has credit. [See Ques. 13, 14, and 15.] But, on the contrary, I as
a partner in the late firm, and in the concern of Monson, De Forest & Son,
affirm and maintain that the late firm, now stand legally indebted to Mon
son on their own books for this $20,493, and Monson, De Forest & Son, now
stand legally indebted, to that firm, for these very matters and things, and
for this same amount— and on the simple, yet incontrovertible groUnd, that
any errors, or wrong entries existing in books, must be corrected in those
very books, and canntit be corrected in the books of another firm. (See
Ques. 29, and 31.] For the same reasons, also, do I pronounce all the re
maining part of the same entry wrong, by which, Monson, De Forest & Son
are made debtors, $3,924 23— and Monson made a creditor for the same
amount— because this firm having no interest or concern whatever, in any
of these matters and things, and as they belong exclusively to the accounts
oT other parties on the books of the late firm, those accounts can never hi
adjusted and closed until all these matters and things are placed to the pro
per accounts of those parties, on those books. LSee 22, and Axioms.]
But we are now, by a new and singular process, adopted by our. book
keeper in making out accounts, brought to the examination of another ac
count with Monson, which from its construction and professed object, I de
nominate a blendid account, [See Ap. M,] made up by our book-keeper, at
the time he transferred his account from the old books to the new ; and em
bracing, as he certifies, not only his account in old books, which was

[32 |
thus transferred, but also hisaccount in the new books, word for word, ana fi
gure for figure. [See his answers on the account.] This extraordinary account,
therefore, as our book-keeper himself declares, is not only to,furnish Mon
son au exact transcript of his account with each firm ; but also, to show
him the actual state of his account, with the new firm, down to the 22d Sep
tember; and this is proved from the fact, that the same balance, viz: $34,-
854 07, is stated to be due to Monson on this blended account, as appears to
be due to him on his proper account in the new books ; and both accounts
it will be noticed, embrace the several items to his credit, 22d September,
while the transfer of his account,/rom. the old books was actually made on
the 5th September, more than two weeks before. From such a view of this
account then, it would seem to me, that the first reflection of every book
keeper, or merchant would be, if this account is to furnish Monson a tran
script of his account with both firms, how is it possible that the whole bal
ance of it, viz : $34,854 07 is actually due only to the new firm ? For it is
seen that no mention whatever of the transfer, of the 5th September, is even
made on it ! Again, as it is seen by his proper account, with both firms, that
such a transfer was actually made on the 5th, and a balance of $14,861 02,
was then actually brought from the old books, to the credit of his proper
account in the new books. Why then, is that fact suppressed in this ac
count rendered Monson? Do not the principles both of book-keeping and law,
require, that when accounts are rendered to a party, they should at least be
true on the face of them ? But this certainly is not a true account, because
it leaves out the item of transfer, which is credited to him in his proper ac
count of $14,861 02. And pray, if this $14,861 02, had not stood to his
credit on his proper account, new books, would not the balance of that ac
count, both on the 5th as well as the 22d September, have been so much less
on these books than it now is ; and if on the transfer entry, in the old books, he
had not been charged with it, would not that firm have still been indebted to
him for that whole sum ? Pray then, does such an account as this, which con
tains no such transfer, actually transfer a balance of $14,861 02, which the
old firm owed him, and make the new firm debtors to him for it ? Or does
it show him the actual state of his account with either firm, or can it be a
true and correct one. But again, it differs from his proper account, new books,
in that, in attempting to make an offset between the interest, wliich was
due to Monson on his account with the old firm, and which was due from him
on his proper account with the new firm, there is a short credit to him in this
blended account of $2 08. And again, this account, as well as his proper
account, contains credits to it under date of 22d September, for specific
matters and things, amounting to $24,417 23, with which the new firm have
no connection or concern whatever, but which are transactions between him,
and the old firm alone. And moreover, lastly ; although this account was not
only intended, but really does purport to show Monson the actual state
of his accounts with both firms, and also, that the whole balance of it, $34,-
854 07, was actually due to the new firm. Yet the fact indeed is, that no
such account exists at all on the books of either firm ; and this is fully proved
by the actual state of his proper account with each firm, to which I refer.
[See Ap. A and L.]
Is this, then the true and proper account of M. Monson, as it stands on the
new books ? And has a book-keeper indeed, the right and power to jeopar
dize, and perhaps destroy the rights and character of the house that employs
him, by making out and rendering such acounts as this? And am I as a
partner in these firms, obliged to submit to such an act on the part of our
book-keeper ; and are my rights to be concluded by it ? If indeed it be so,
may it not with emphasis be asked, whose rights, property, or character then
are safe ?
Having now pointed out the several items in these corresponding entries,
which are to be excluded in the examination of them, and the errors which
exist in the proper account of M. Monson, new books ; also that the ac-

L33]
count which was rendered him, as his account with bothfirms, (which I call
his blended account,) does not contain all the items in said accounts as they
stand on the books, nor show at all, how the balance of it can be made to
be due and owing wholly to the new firm alone ; because no transfer of his
account from the old books, appears in it. And further thai no such ac
count exists at all in either set of books.
The way now seems clear for the direct enquiry, whether the corres
ponding entries in the new books as they now stand, are right, or whether
they are wiong.
And here the reader is again reminded, that the sole object of the original
entry, was to transfer the balance of ihe account ol Monson, De Forest &
Son, from the old books, lo the new. | See Ques. 23. | And lhat the ac
count transferred as well as lhat original entry, both state the actual balance
of it to be $81,680 60, while $75,083 03 only "bf 'that balance, was actually
transferred by that entry.
The reader is also reminded, that it has already been abundantly proved,
not only that the account irausferied, is not ihe irue and proper account of
Monson, De Forest & Son as it stands on those books. But also that the or
iginal entry and transfer, are in themselves entirely wrong. And further,
that no entry in one set of books which is wrong, can be made right by any
entries that can possibly be made in another sel of books. [See Ques. 13 to
17 inclusive, 21, 29 and Axioms.] Nevertheless, as my opponents still affirm
that these corresponding entries do actually make lhat wrong entry right.
We will test the correctness of their assertion by the entries themselves.
Laying out of the questions then, the items before mentioned, viz: the
$1,808 47, and $4,096 51. The first fact declared in these corresponding en
tries, is that Monson, De Forest & Son are debtors to sundries, not for $81,-
680 60, but for only $75,095 32, and that is expressly stated in this entry,
to be for " balance due" late De Forest & Son '' transferred from late books."
Is this then the balance of that account, and is this part of these entries even
true in itself? Now it is doubtless an admitted principle, both in book-keep
ing and law, that any entry in books which is not true on Ihe face of it, or
which fails to accomplish ihe very thing for which it was made, cannot be
right on the principles of either. The first fact declared, therefore, not
being true in itself, this part of these entries must be wrong. And the same
item in these corresponding entries, declares that interest account is debtor
for the "amount due late firm, on the joint account of Monson and them
selves, made up this day to 31st instant.$6,585 28." Well, De Forest & Son,
new firm, had already been charged this identical thing, in the original en
try in the old books, and even my opponents all admit, that charge to be
wrong; and now in this entry they are charged for that very identical thing
over again. And is this right — does this entry indeed make that wrong en
try right? If so, then truly may it be said, it is high time for old merchants,
old book-keepers, and even old lawyers, (for at least one modern one pro
nounces these books all right,) to give up their callings, and go to school,
and learn their professions over again.
But there is one item more in these two corresponding entries, which de
serves notice. In the original entry in the old books, it will be seen, that
the new firm are debited, and commission account credited $1,808 47, for an
allowance to the late firm of half the amount of certain commissions, which
the new firm had charged to. the sales accounts of Monson, De Forest &
Son, and credited to commission account in their books, (but which allow
ance, however, Itotally disavow.) Yet, acccording to the old fashion way of
doing things, it would seem that as Monson, De Forest & Son had once been
charged, (as in fact they had been in their several sales accounts, new books,)
with the whole of this $1,808 47; that they really ought not to be charged
any part of it over again ; and as commission account in the new books,
had once been [credited the whole of it,it would therefore seem proper,
'if this allowance even was permitted to be made at all,) that commission

[34 |
account shou.d here be charged with the whole oi it back again. But il is
seen by the first of these entries, lhat Monson, De Forest &Son are actually
charged over again for $203 36 of that very amount ; and by the second,
that commission account is hIso short charged, lor the same amount. Most
surely then, these accounts, are each, respectively wrong for this sum of
$203 36, even as these entries now stand ; and they are wrong, also for Ihe
whole $1,808 47, because I disavow the allowance of it.
Let iis liow take up the proper account of Monson, De Forest & Son,
in Ihe new books, (I say proper account, lo distinguish it from the blended
account before alluded to.) It will be recollected, that those parts of this
account, which are connected wilh the account of M. Monson, has already
been considered, say, the following sums, which are here debited to thein
and credited to Monson in entry of 22d September, new books, viz: $20,-
493, and $3,924 23 ; and that both these accounts were stated lo be totally
wrong, for both these sums, on the ground that they are transactions
with which this firm have no concern whatever, and that they purport to
correct errors existing in other books, and in accounts between these parties
themselves and other houses But we have occasion now, to examine more
particularly this item of $4,096 51, which (as before stated) is incorporated
in the first of these corresponding entries, and is there charged to the proper
account of Monson, De Forest & Son, under date of 15th December, in Ihe
word and figures following, viz:
For "balance of interest due us on account made up this day," 4,697 25
" Deduct amount already entered,"
Fol. 71 693 67 32

760 32
Less 159 58

600 74

4,096 51
And here the first enquiry naturally is, what balance of interest is this for
which Monson, De Forest & Son are indebted to the new firm on an account
made up 15th December. If you turn to their proper account with this firm,
as it stood on the books on the very day that charge was made. [See Ap. P.]
You will see by the interest account stated on it, up to 31st December ; that
instead of Monson, De Forest & Son owing the new firm $4,697 35 or $4,-
096 51, for a balance of interest "on an account that day made up." The
new firm actually owed them a balance of interest, on their proper account
also made up on that very day and from the books themselves, of $1,888 03;
and, let it be remembered this balance of interest must be charged over to
them, in their proper names, on those books; or their account on those books
can never De legally settled and closed. [See Ques. 1,2,3,11,13 to 16 and
Ques. Ap. P.] Both these facts therefore, cannot be true ; and as this firm
actually did owe them a balance of interest of $1,888 03 on that very day,
which not only their proper account, but the books themselves prove. Then
most assuredly they cannot be indebted lo this firm, for the same identical
thing $4,096 51. But even supposing the charge for this balance of interest
$4,697 25 was really correct— why, it is asked, make these deductions and
reductions from it here? If you look at the debit to Monson, De Forest*
Son, 22d September, for $2,0403. You will there see that the first item of
deduction, $693, is a specific charge against them for 7 months interest, on
$19,800, which had been wrong debited to Monson, and wrong credited to
interest account in the old books, 4th September. What possible connexion
has it then wilh the balance of interest on this account ? But my opponents
affirm that the charge of it to them in these books, 22d September, cancels
that wrong debit to Monson, and wrong credit to interest account in old book,

I 35 |
and ia right. Why then, again, deduct the $693 here, from a balance of in
terest, which (Ihis entry states) Monson, De Forest & Son owe this firm, on
an account made up ? And besides, in the entry, 22J September, new books
this $693 is not chargea to interest account at all, but to Monson, De Forest
& Son, and, therefore, is not, as this entry states it was, before entered to in
terest account. But again, if the debit of the $693 to Monson, De Forest &
Son, on 22d September, did cancel the wrong debit of il to Monson, 4th Sep
tember, on the old books, and was right ; pray, does not the deduction of it
here, if this is right, have the effect again to reverse ai,d cancel the debit
of it to Monson, De Forest & Son, on the 22d September; and in turn
again, of course, to restore Ihe wrong debil of it lo Monson of 4th Septem
ber, in old books, and thus leave that entry wrong again 1 This $693 must
indeed be a potent instrument, if it can, on the principles of book-keeping
and law, be made to subserve so many different purposes ! But this deduc
tion, and its effects, suggests anoiher important enquiry, viz : If on any
principle, whatever, the $693, is lo be deducted here ; and if being so deduc
ted, it has the effect actually to reverse so much of the entry of the 22d Sep
tember, new books, and lo restore so much of the wrong debit of it to Monson,
in the old books. Pray, do not the same principles not only require, but de
mand that the other part of the same entry, $19,800, should also be deduc
ted, and in like manner reversed and cancelled ? For they both stand on
the same ground, both being there charged Monson, De Forest & Son, ex
pressly to reverse a wrong debit to Monson, in old books, for the same amount
and for one and the same thing. Again the second item of the same debit,
which isj deducted, say $67 32 is for 2 months and 2 days interest, on the
sum of $6,515 49, which Baring's in London, had debited Monson, and pass
ed to creditof Monson, De Forest &Son ; what possible connexion then, is
there between this item and this balance of interest $4,697 25, and this
sum too, no where appears in the interest account in these books ; besides
does not the deduction of it here, have the effect to reverse the debit of it to
them, 22d September. On what principle, then, I ask, is this part of that
entry deducted here ; and again, if any part of it is deducted, should not Ihe
whole be, and was not lhat a right debit ?
And once more, tbe Ihird item of the same debit, say $159 58, which,
it will be noticed, is not like the others, deducted from the $4,697 25 ; but
from the two foregoing sums, added together, and this [notice] reduces and
makes wrong again, the above two deductions just so much ! This item, it
will be seen is for 12 months and 23 days interest on $2,499, which whole
amount, $2,658 58 this very entry states, was wrong credited to Monson, in
his account in the old books, 30th May. And if so, I ask, on what conceiv
able principle, can that wrong credit, in anoiher set of books and for a total
ly different matter and thing ; and which never had even an existence in
these books, have any thing lo do with this balance of interest, $4,697 25,
here stated to be due to thUfirm on an account ? And again, if this part of
that entry is to be deducted, should not the other part of it, $2,499, also be ?
For they are inseparably connected in that entry in the old books, and must
go together, and are together, either right or wrong, as they there stand. —
Besides, if on any principle it was proper to deduct the $693 and $67 32 from
the $4,697 25. Was it not equally proper and even necessary that the $159
58 cts. should also be deducted from it? for certainly, this has just as much
connexion with it as the others. But again— on what principle is the $159
58 cts. deducted from the other two sums, instead of the $4,697 25. For if
the deduction from it, of the other two sums was right. Then most cer
tainly the deduction of the $159 58 from them, makes thai right deduction,
wrong again for just the amount so deducted from them. Again this entry
states, as a reason for making these deductions and the reduction, that they
had before been entered, Fol. 71 in these books. Whereas on the contrary,
it is seen that the $159 58 is part of an entry, not in these books at all, but
in another set of books ! And also, that the otherjtwo sums had not in fact
beforebeen entered at all to interest account in these books, as these entries,

L36]
Fol. 71 fully prove; and therefore, are not in themselves, nor on any princi
ple can they be proper items of deduction from a charge of balance of
interest due from Monson, & De Forest Son, to the new firm !
It is true indeed, lhal the first two items, had been charged to Monson,
De Forest & Son, as stated, Fol. 71. But these debits themselves shew, that
they have no possible connection wilh any balance of interest which Mon
son, De Forest & Son may owe this firm on account, but relate entirely lo
transactions between thein and the old firm, and between M. Monson and
Barings of London. It is also alike true, that neither of these two items had
been credited al all to interest account, in these books, as this entry states they
had. Here then, is perfect demonstration, that the deduction of these two sums,
from the balance of interest due on this account, together with the deduc
tion again from them, of the $159 58, are totally wrong, even were this
balance itself, a proper matter of debit to Monson, De Forest & Son; but
that also I wholy deny, and trust I shall hereafter most fully prove.
Having, as I trust, most satisfactorily shown that these deductions and reduc
tions are entirely wrong, I shall now attempt to show, and, unless I greatly
misjudge, trust I shall fully demonstrate, not only what this debit of $4,096
51 cts., lo Monson, De Forest & Son, " for balance of interest due on an ac
count made up" actually is; but that it is entirely wrong altogether, and is
in (act, and to all intents and purposes, a complete forced charge, and with
out a panicle of foundation.
And the first proof 1 offer, is, the proper account of Monson, De Forest &
Son, as ii actually stood on the new books, and which was drawn off, and an
interest account stated on it the very day this charge was made, and which
shows a balance of interest to be due on it, of $1,888 03, not from Monson,
De Forest & Son to them, but jrom them to Monson, Dt Forest & Son.
How is it possible then, that this debit lo them for the same specific thing,
as the entry expressly states, can be true? [See Ques. 13 to 16, and Axi
oms.] And where is there a particle of foundation for such a charge against
them at all ?
And, secondly, although the interest stated to be due to them on their
proper accounl, has not yet been credited, to them on the books— yet it must
be so credited to them, and in their proper names, before their account
can ever be legally settled and closed on those books. [See Ques. 1, to 4, 11,
and Axioms.]
And, thirdly, it cannot fail to be seen, on an examination ofthe blended ac
count, from whence this balance of interest, $4,697 25 is drawn, thatjil actually
isnothing more, nor less than just that partof the $6,585,28, balance of inter
est which was due from Monson De Forest & Son to the oldfirm, on the very
account, which was made the ground and basis of the transfer entry, in those
books, and the same part also of the corresponding part of that entry in the
new books, [Mr. Burrill also confirms this fact; See Ques. 7.] And, al
though this balance of interest, $6,585 28, has never yet been charged at all
to Monson, De Forest % Son, in either set of books — yet, it has been charged
to the new firm in the old books, and to interest account in the new books,
which entirely completes the transfer entries of it in both books, and whe
ther right or wrong, entirely puts an end to any further disposition of it at
all; and although my opponents admit that the debit of it to thenew firm, in
the old hooks, is entirely wrong— yet they insist that the corresponding entry,
which is made of it in the new books, sets that wrong debit right, and makes
both books right. .
Bui, I ask, on what possible principle can a part of that very $6,528 28
balance of an interest on account thus settled, be made a ground of charge
to Monson, De Forest & Son on the new books ?— and especially when the
entry itself, declares it to be a totally different matter, from that balance. It
is by no means competent for my opponents to say, that the debit of the
$6,585 ^8 to interest account, in the new books, is wrong ; for if it i"

37 1
Wrong. Then, most assuredly, not only is this entry itself wrong, but this
part of the corresponding entry which is the only one that has ever been
made of it at ail, does not make the wrong entry of it, in the old books ri</ht.
And it is only on the ground that these corresponding entries are right, and
do actually make those wrong entries right, that they rely, to suport their de
clarations that our books are all right. If, therefore, this debit ol it to interest
account is wrong, all their arguments to prove our books right, fall to the
ground. But, as it is nevertheless, entirely, and only on the ground, that this
debit of $6585 25 to interest account is wrong. That there can be even a
shadow of pretence for this charge of $4697 28, 1 not only yield them the
benefit of my admission that it is wrong, but also myself absolutely affirm
it to be so. And pray, how does this at all avail them— does that fact af
ford a shadow of ground, or even pretence for such a charge as this ? On
the contrary, if that debit of the $6,585 28 to interest account is wrong,
then the only possible way by which it can be corrected and set right, is by
making a regular reverse entry of it in these books, and for the specific
identical matter and thing, in which the wrong consists. This, common
sense, as well as all the principles of book-keeping demand. [See Ques. 31
and Axioms.] But, so far from this entry, and this debit of $4,697 25, hav
ing even the appearance of such a purpose, or, of having the least connec
tion at all with that debit of interest account — it not only does not even al
lude to it, but expressly states it to be for a totally different matter and
thing, viz ; for " balance of interest due us," that is the new firm, on ac
count this day " made up."
For the foregoing reasons, therefore alone, though others might be stated,
I do not hesitate to affirm, lhat on whatever principles my opponents either
have adopted, or may adopt, as well as on every principle of book-keeping,law,
and of the rights of parlies, this charge of $4096 51 lo Monson De Forest
& Son, in the new books, is not only totally wrong in itself, but is also, to
all intents and purposes, an entirely groundless, and therefore a complete
forced charge.
I have now a few more observations to offer in reference to the $159 58,
which, it has already been seen, is deducted from the two other items of
$693 and 67 32, which are themselves first deducted from the $4,697 25
in the first of tluse corresponding entries ; and it has also been seen, by the
en ry of 22d September, new books, that it had there already been deducted,
together also with the principal, $2499, from a debit to Monson, De Forest
& Son, of$6,58281, and expiessly for the purpose, as the entry states, to re
vise a wrong credit of both these items of $2,499 and 159 58 to M. Monson,
on the 30ih May, in the old books. On what principal then, pray, is it again
deducted from these deductions here; for this deduction, it must be noticed,
if it is right, certainly has _ the effect again to reverse so much of the entry
of 30th May, and make that wrong again. But turn now to that credit, old
books, 30th May, and it is there seen that, that entry also, is a reverse enlry,
made to correct a wrong debit to him, 9th August, same books, and far the
very same thing; and, because, as that entry states, it had been used for
joint account, though, yet in fact, it never was so used. And again, for the
same reason, remittance account was then also charged with the principal,
viz: $2,499." But the interest, $159 58, (let it be particularly noticed) was
not then charged, either to remittance account, or to Monson, De Forest cf-
Son, but to interest account in the old books 1 And now I ask, even if this
charge to Monson, De Forest & Son, 22d September, new books of ihe $6,-
582 81 was right in itself, and rightly placed on the new books— yet, why
is this $159 58 deducted from it, when it had never been charged to Monson,
De Forest & Son in the old books ?
For surely, even if the credit to Monson, of 30th May, was a wrong cre
dit, and ought, indeed, to be reversed, yet as the interest account old books,
(and not Monson, De Forest & Son) was charged with this $159 58, therefore,
G

I 38]
interest account in those books, (ii indeed, any body) ought to be credited
back for it,— and not Monson, De Forest f Son in either set of books. But
it is seen by the deduction of it here, from this charge to them, of $6,582 81
that they actually thereby, get the benefit of this $159 58, athough never
charged to them at all. Here then, even admitting that the whole debit to
Monson, De Forest & Son, of $6,582- 81, was rightly placed upon these
books (which 1 totally deny) yet this deduction from it, of the $159 58 is
totally wrong ? Becanse it not only has the effect to make the debit lo
Monson, De Forest & Son so much less than it ought to be— but it Joes not,
(as the entry states it does) reverse the wrong debit of it, 30th May last, to
interest account, old books, but leaves that account just as wrong still, (if it
was then wrong) for the $159 5S, as if this deduction had not been made.
Both deductions of it, therefore, first, in entry of 22d Sept., and now again
from entry of 15th December, are totally wrong.
I have a few observations to make also in regard to the deduction of the
$2,499 from this debit $6,582 81 to Monson, De Forest & Sons, 22d Septem
ber, nev/ books.
It will be seen by Barings first account with Monson, under the date of
30th of August, 1831, lhat he there has credit for the 510 pounds, (which is
the very item, with the premium added to it, which is here deducted,) and
for which Barrings have allowed him interest, from that time, down to the
30th June, 1832, and which 510 pounds and interest, makes part of the ba
lance of his second account with them of 1,253 pounds, 8 shillings, and
which very balance, with $67 32 added to it makes this $6,582 81, which is
debited to Monson, De Forest & Son, in the new books, 22d September.
This being the fact, please look at the credit to Monson, in his account, 30th
May, old books, which was made expressly to reverse the debit to him ofQth
August previous, for this very 510 pounds and premium, and you will then
see, that he also has credit at the same time, for the interest on it, from the
time it was charged to him, down to the 1st September, 12 months, 23 days,
say $159 58, that reverse entry, therefore, to his credit, 30th May, actually
does cancel the debit to him of 9th August previous, together with the inte
rest on it as above and leaves his account in old books, just as if the 510
pounds with premium and interest had never been charged to him at all.
And now, with all these indisputable facts before us, we are prepared to
ask; not whether any entry of it which can be made in the new books at
all, can possibly reverse lhat credit to him of 30th May in old books, for that
it would seem is impossible, | See Ques. 21 and 29,] but whether the simple
deduction of it here, from this debit to Monson De Forest & Son of the $6,-
582 81, withnomore interest thanhad been credited Monson, 30th May, old
books, can possibly be right, (even if it could have had tht effect, tore-
verse that entry to him which I deny.) I insist that it cannot, because the or
iginal debit to him, 9th August together with this "interest on it, $159 58 had
already actually been cancelled by the entry of 30th May, old books. And
Monson, De Forest & Son (under title of remittance,) wasatthe same time,
charged with the 510 pounds and premium, say, $2,499; and interest ac
count at the same time, was also charged for this interest SI 59 58; but also
because Monson has credit with Barings, not only for the 510 pounds as be
fore stated, but also for the interest on it, from 30th August, 1831, down to
30th June, 1832. [See account, Ap. N.]
For these reasons, therefore, I hesitate not to affirm, that the debit to
Monson, De Forest & Son of the $6,582 81, in the new books at all, is to
tally wrong; and the deduction of the $2,499 and the $159 58 is also
equally wrong. But even if these were all right, yet the deduction on ac
count of interest here, bf only the $159 58, would still be wrong. And as
Monson has had credit with Barings, not only for the 510 pound ; but for
the interest on it, for the whole time, I hesitate not, also to say, that the
only way in which the balance of his account which Barings debited him,
and credited Monson. De Forest & Son, 30th June, can ever be correctly
and legally adjusted by us, is to place that amount, say 1,253 pounds 8 shil-

[39]
lings ; and the premium on it, at the rate it stood at, 30th June, (not 10 1-4
per cent., as in this entry,) together with 2 months and 2 days interest on it
to the debit of Monson, De Forest and Son, and to the credit of Monpon on the
old books ; and at same time to debit Monson on these books the 510 pounds,
at 10 1-4 per cent., together with the interest ou it from the 9th August, 1831,
down to the time when the entry shall be made ; and in this way only, can
it ever be rightly adjusted.
I, therefore claim, that all that part of the entry of 22d September, which
debits Monson, De Forest & Son with the $6,582 81, together with all the
deductions from it, are totally wrong on the new books, and can never be
made right, until placed on the old books as above stated, where only they
belong. There are some other facts, however, in reference to this whole entry of
22d Sept., as appears by the proper account of Monson, De Forest & Son,
new books, which deserve notice. It will be seen by the interest account,
stated on this account, that interest on the above sum of $20,493, is charged
them,from 1st September to 31st December, say 4 months, which at the rate of
6 per cent, would be $409 85. Now please turn to the account transferred,
old books, [Ap. D] and you will find them, there charged interest on this
identical 4,050 pounds at 10 per cent., or "$19,800 (included in 'the 10,000
pounds,) from 1st February down to 31st December, so that this portion of
the interest charged them iu their proper account, new books, under date of
22d September, is in fact a double charge against them to amount of $409 85
even at 6 per cent.
Again it is seen, that interest is charged them in their proper account,
n.ew books, on the whole amount of the entry of 22d September, say $24,-
417 23, from 1st September to 31st December, 4 months, which makes the
amount of $678 52, while the actual interest at 6 per cent, is only $488 35, so
that they are there actually over charged interestin this item, $140 18, even
as that entry now stands ; but for the reasons above stated, it is perfectly
manifest, that this whole charge of $678 52 for interest, is entirely wrong.
I also affirm, that the two debits under date of 27 and 28th November, are
transactions between them and the old firm only; and are therefore, wrongful
ly charged to them, in these books. And I claim also, that the whole transfer
debit of $75,298 68, under date of 15th December, is wholly a wrong debit
to them. And in reference to the $4,697 25, charged them for balance of
interest due on account, I pronounce that, a totally improper and groundless
charge; and on the credit side of same account, under date of 8th June,
there is an item amounting to $9,302 40, and under date of 4th Sept., another
credit of a balance due Monson, De Forest & Son by Barings, and which Bar
ing placed to the credit of the account of De Forest & Son, old firm, 30th
June, 1832, all of which credits are transactions with which the new firm
have nothing to do, and in fact, are transactions between the old firm, and
other parties; and are, therefore, wrongfully placed to the credit of Mon
son, De Forest & Son in the books of this firm.
Having now shown how the proper account of Monson, De Forest &
Son, new books, actually stood on those books, down to 31st December,
and the various errors which exist in it.
I will now proceed to show what account the blended account really is,
and how it is made up, and to prove, as I trust I shall most conclusively, that
no such account exists at all in the books of either firm ; and that it is an
account indeed " made up," not only of a large portion of matters, things
and accounts with which the new firm never had the least possible connec
tion or concern. But one differing almost entirely from their proper ac
count, new books, even as that account now stands on the books, and show
ing a balance to be due from it, to the new firm, both on the account itself,
and also on the interest account stated on it, entirely different from their
proper account. And, notwithstanding, the great skill in the art and science
of book-keeping, and the acute knowledge of the principles of law and ol

1401
the rights of parties and accounts, which it displays, not only in the manner
in which it is " made up ;" but also in the matter of which it is composed,
and especially in the profound discovery which it brings to light of this new
and happy way of making up, and rendering accounts ; and particularly in
showing how the accounts of two distinct and separate firms, one of which
had already been settled with one firm, and transferred to the other, can all,
(without any reference to such transfer,) be brought together again, inio one
grand general account, and by this masterly operation, make the balance
which was due from the party to one firm, an offset to the balance due to
that party, by the other firm ; and thus make the party an actual debtor to
the other firm for that difference. I say, notwithstanding all this, and,
moreover, although my partner, one eminent merchant, one president of
an Insurance Company, and one distinguished lawyer, have all pronounced
this account to be correct and perfectly consistent with all the principles of
book-keeping and law, and wilh all the rights and interests of parties and
accounts. Yet such has been my presumption, (and'as they with greatly
affected kindnes and charity affirm, my insanity,) that I have not only ques
tioned its correctness and legality, in reference to all those principles, rights
and interests ; but have constantly, and as I now do unhesitatingly affirmed,
that this account has no existence on these books at all, and that it is in it
self, and for the purposes for which it was " made up," not only totally
wrong, but a complete burlesque, on all those principles and rights, and of
all correct and legal methods, of making up and rendering accounts. And
for proof of these positions, I refer to tbe account itself, on which our book
keeper has expressly stated, that " it purports to balance and close the ac
count of Monson, De Forest & Son, omold books," and "to adjust and set
tle the balance, $23,370 93, stated to be due on it, in their account in the
new books." [See Ques. on this account, Ap. Q.] And here the reader is
desired to notice the purposes which this account is to achieve. First, it is to
balance and close their account on the old books, which by the way had al
ready been done, if the books are right, by the transfer ofthe balance of that
account, in those books, and the corresponding entries in the new books; and
which entries,of themselves, necessarily,completely seftle,close and put an end
to thejr account, in the' old books ; and the only proper evidence, therefore, to
be furnished Monson that, that account had been so settled and closed, as I
affirm, was to render him their true and proper account, as it stood on those
books, which contains this transfer entry, and that account (if right) would
show him how it had actually been closed; but in this blended account,
there is not even an intimation that such a transfer had ever been made or
that, that account was closed at all. Does this account then (which does not
even exist in the books) really serve the purpose to balance and close their
account in, old books.
The second purpose which this account is to effect, is to adjust and settle
the balance which is stated to be due on it, in ithe proper account of Mon
son, De Forest & Son, new books. [See Ques. on the account, Ap. Q.]
But so far from effecting such a purpose, their proper account, new books,
shows that, after crediting to it the balance of interest, which is stated to be
due on it, $1,888 03 j and which must be done, or it can never be settled.
And again, by omiting the charge to it, of this $4,096 51, balance of inter
est on this blended account, which is a total wrong charge, the actual
balance, instead of being $23,370 93, would then only be $16,785 65, even
allowing that the transfer entries in the new books were themselves right,
but which I wholly deny.
Again then I ask, does this account really and truly show the same bal
ance to be due on it, which is due on the proper account of Monson, De
Forest & Son, new books ?
But the important enquiry still comes up— what really and truly is this
balance of interest of $4,697 25— and from what sources is it actually drawn ?
And further, if such a balance of interest is really due to either ol these

| 41 |
firms, to which of them is it actually due? And, without again, going into
all the details, to show how the account was " made up" — the matters and
things, and parts of accounts of which it is composed, and the facts and
dates, proving how, where, and when those very accoiiBts, had before been
settled and closed, and that no such account now exists at all iu the
books. The first part of these enquiries has already been fully answered by Mr.
Burrill himself, [See Ques. 7,) where he expressly states it to be, the differ
ence between the $6,585 28 balance of interest which Monson, De Forest
& Son owed the old firm, and the $1,888 03 balance of interest which the
new firm owed them, on their respective accounts; and both which accounts
with these balances of interest stated on them, were made up before this
blended account was, or even could be. So that by simply deducting (on a
piece of paper) the $1,888 03 from the $6,585 28, you have at once the
same result, as is actually produced by this laboured, complicated, and most
extraordinary account. How preposterous then, to go through all this
needless labour, and mere farcical operation of making up such an account
as this, merely to assertain this difference. And it is worthy of particular
notice, that aside from the pretence, that this blended account, (when render
ed to Monson) would show him the actual state of the proper accounts
of Monson, De Forest & Son on both sets of books (and of which I shall
speak hereafier)no other use whatever has ever been made of it, than simply to
charge over this difference of interest to Monson, De Forest & Son, and
that too, under the entirely untrue declaration, Thai it is a balance of interest
due to the new firm, " on an account made up." And here, allow me to ask ?
If this balance of interest on this blended account, is indeed a proper matter
of debit to Monson, De Forest & Son on the new books, (as my opponents
affirm it is,) is not the balance of the principal of lhat account also, equally
a proper matter of debit to them in those books ? On the contrary, how
ever, it is seen by examining this blended account, that by far the greater
part of the items in it, together with the interest also on all those items had
already, if the books are right, been for ever settled and closed, in the old
books, by a regular entry and transfer of the balance of their account,on those
books. And regular corresponding entries for the whole balance of their
account, including the balance of interest $6,585,28, had also, already been
made in the new books. On what principle then, either of book-keeping or
law, or the rights of parties, I again ask, can this part of lhat very $6,585 28
balance of interest, ever be again made a matter of debit to Monson, De For
est & Son, any where, or any how at all 1 And especially, by what sort ol
necromancy can it be made to be due to the new firm. Do book-keepers
indeed, possess such powers— can they, b)' the mere farce of making up
such an account as this, containing parts only, of distinct accounts of a party
with two separate firms — actually thus transpose a debt, or even a part of a
debt, which that party owed to one firm, and make the parly debtors for it, to
the other firm?— And that too, not only without even the form ofa transfer of
it being made on the books, but in fact, against an actual and regular entry
and transfer of that very debt, already made, and that too, existing in the
very entry, in which this charge of $4,697 25 is incorporated.
Again, I have already stated thatthe whole result of this blended account,
was merely to ascertain the difference between Hje $6,585 28 balance of inter
est, which Monson, De Forest & Son owed the old firm, and the $1,888 03
balanceof interest which the new firm owed them. And now to show, not
only the grounds on which our book-keeper charged this difference $4,-
697 25 to Monson, De Forest & Son in the new books; but also the object
he had in view and which he considered he had accomplished by it. Please
turn to first question on the blended account of Monson, De Forest &Son
[Ap. Q] where he expressly says, the object in charging it, was not only to
adjust and settle these two conflicting balances of interest on these two sep
arate accounts, but the principal of each also ; and from all the arguments
1 have yet heard from my opponents, it is for these very same reasons, that

[42]
they claim this charge to be right. And now leaving lo my opponents and
the book-keeper the task of proving, that all these objects are indeed not.
only accomplished by this extraordinary account, butihat the charge ol this
$4,697 25 is itself both proper aud right, on the principles of book-keeping,
of law, and the rights of parties. 1 next invite you to look again at the ques
tion on the blended account, and from the reply of our book-keeper, you
will there discover another very extraordinary but no less important object
to be accomplished by this blended account, viz: not only was it to shew
Monson that it actually did adjust and settle the account of Monson De
Forest & Son on the old books, but that it was also to adjust and settle the
balai.ce stated to be due on it, in their account, on the new books. A wonder
ful accountjtruly ! and ought not tlie skill and talents of any man to be admired,
be he book-keeper, merchant or lawyer, who could conceive and "makeup"
an account like this— the magic powers of which, could at the same time ac
complish so many different and conflicting objects, and that too, when it did
not itself even exist at all in the books of either firm, or agree with their
accounts in the books of both, or either fii m. But, again, on looking at this
blended account, it will be seen that more than nine tenths of the debit side
of it is composed of items taken (it must be noticed) not indeed from the
proper account of Monson, De Forest & Son, old books. But, from the
transferred account ; and which, like the blended account, though also mere
ly " Made up" on paper, was yet the basis of the entry and transfer on the
old books, and ofthe corresponding-entries in the new books ; and all of
which (it must also be noticed) had by these very entries already been ad
justed and settled in both the old books and the new; while on the other
hand, near four fifths of all the credits to it, are composed of ilems taken
from the proper account of Monson, De Forest & Son in the new books. Yet
such indeed are the wonders, (according to all my opponents) which this ac
count has so happily accomplished, that it actually makes Monson, De Forest
& Son debtors to the new firm, [or the whole balance of it, $23,370 93. And
yet, strange as it may appear, our book-keeper selects one specific item only,
out of the $23,370 93, which males that balance, and charges that specific
item, over to them on the new books, and that too under the false decla
ration, that it is a balance of interest which they owe the new firm on their
account in these books! and by thus placing this sum (less deducted from
it, 600 74,) say $4,096 51 to the debilof their proper account, and by omit
ting to credit, them, it must also be remembered ,-lhe balance of interesl, $1,-
888 03, which, by their proper account, previously made up, this firm actu
ally owed to them — he most harmoniously, consistently, and legally, as my
opponents affirm, brings about the happy result, of making the balance of
their proper account, new books, correspond and agree with the balance of
this blended account.
But again, in addition to all the other functions of this wonderful account.
It was also to furnish a correct transcript of all the accounts of Monson, De
Forest & Son, wilh these two separate and distinct firms, as. they stood on
each set of books. And yet, this account von see, is not even described to be
an account with Monson, De Forest & Son at all, but is headed thus "Ad
venture to Buenos Ayres, in Company wilh M. Monson, &c.;" well, this
then is not an account between these two firms, and Monson, De Forest &
Son ; and if it was, the new firm never had any interest or concern what
ever in such an adventure with Monson. Again, who pray, could ever ascer
tain from this account itself, that either of these two firms had any thing at
all to do with it, for their names even are not mentioned in it. And who, I
ask again, from the most close examination of their accounts, could for a
moment even suppose, that it related at all to the accounts of Monson, De
Forest & Son with both, or even either of these two firms ; for their names
also are not even mentioned in it, from beginning to end. But over and
above all this, no such account whatever, either under such a title as this, or
any other title, exists at all in either set of books.
Once more— here we have justseen how the balance of their account in

[43]
the new books was " made" to agree with the balance of the blend id account.
Let usftiow see, how far the blended account ilself, agrees with the proper
account of Monson, De Forest if- Son, old books ; and a single glance at the
two accounts, is, abundantly sufficient to show, how totally different they are,
not only iu the matters, things, and description of things, and the amounts
of which they are respectively composed ; but also in their very titles— the
former being headed, and expressly described lo be an " adventure account
with Monson." And, what pray has an "adventure account" to do with the
proper account of Monson, De Forest & Son. But indeed, it is not even
pretended, that any part of this blended account was actually taken from
their proper account, in the old books, for this account was not even drawn
off. And moreover, by comparing this blenied account with the account of
Monson, De Forest & Son, wliich was made the ground of transfer, in the
old books, it is seen that all that part of the blended account which relates
to the old books, was actually taken from the account transferred, and not
from their proper account, and is therefore, totally different from the proper
account of Monson, De Forest & Son, old books. Let us now compare the
blended account with the account transferred, and see how it agrees even
with that. There is on the debit side of that account, one item of $2,499, 15th
Dec. also the balance of interest due on thai account, $6,585 28, neither of
v. nich, appeared all in the blendid account ; au don the credit side, there is one
item of $19,800, under date of 15th December, which, also is not in tbe
bltnded account al all ; so greatly, therefore, does this blended account dif
fer, even from the account transferred.
Let us now compare il with the proper account of Monson, De Forest &
Son, new books; and it is seen, that the first two items are the debit side of
this account, 22d September, are $19,800 and $693, making together $20,493,
neither of which are in the blended account at all. Here then is an omis
sion of no trifling amount to commence with. But the remaining part
of the same entry is so complicated, and the transpositions from it, to the
blended account, are so extraordinary, that it is deemed proper to state it at
large. It goes on as follows :
"Also for amount of interest and postages for joint account
included by mistake, in Baring, Brothers & Co. private ac
count with M. Monson. Interest, $336 42
Postages, 9 72
346 14
At 8 per cent, is 373 83
Also for this amount transferred from latter to
former by Baring, by order of M .Monson, 1,253
pounds 8 shillings, at 10 1-4 percent., due 30th
June, 1832, M41 66

Interest on do. to September, 2 months 2days, at
6 per cent.

6,515 49
67 32
6,582 81

Deduct
For this amount credited M. Monson in books of
late firm, 30th May, now reversed, the said en
try being erroneous, 510 pounds, at 10 1-4 per
cent. $2,499
Interest on do., to 1st September, 159 58 g5g gg

$3,924 23

L ** I
The first thing to he noticed here, is that the nett sum of $3,924 23 , is i a«
that is debited to Monson, De Forest & Son in this part ofthe entry. Well,
now turn to the blended account under date of 31st May, and it is there seen,
that the third and fourth items in their proper account,amountmg to $6,51549
is actually charged lo the debit of the blended account ; and the third item in
the entry, $67 32, is wholly omitted lo be charged to the debit of that accoun.
Again, while in the entry, the two items amountinglo $2,658 58 are deduct
ed from all the three items charged in it, which deduction, leaves a nett de
bit to Monson, De Forest & Son, in said entry, (as above staled,) of only $3,-
924 23. Yel in the blended account, no deduction whatever of this $2,658 58
is made at all, so that this bleiided account is actually debited $2,591 26 more,
on account of this part of the entry of 22d September, than is charged to
Monson, De Forest & Son in this part of the entry itself. You see then,
lhat $20,493 of the first part of the entry, 22d September, in their proper
account, is wholly omitted to be charged to the debit of the blended account,
And on the other hand, $2,591 26 more, is actualty charged to it, than is
charged to them in the latter part of that entry— and are these mere trifles?
Does this blended account thus far, look like agreeing with the proper ac
count of Monson, De Forest & Son, new books? Look at both again—
compare them — satisfy yourself whether this statement is correct or not.
And again, by the statement of interest on the proper account of Monson,
De Forest & Son, new books, il is seen that interest is charged on ihe
amount of lhat whole entry, say $24,417 23, for 4 months, amounting to
$678 52, while the actual interest on it for 4 months, at 6 per cent., is only
$488 38. Here then isan actual error of $180 75 in this compulation of inte
rest alone; and on the other hand again, il is seen by the blended account, that
while (as before stated) two items only amounting to $6,515 49, of the
the whole of this entry is there debited to Monson, De Forest & Son, yet the
interest is here computed on this sum, not ;for 4 months it will be noticed
as in the account of Monson, De Forest & Son, but for 18 months 1 day,
and actually debited in this account, 685 33, whereas the actual interest on
that sura, even for that time at 6 per cent., is only $586 58, showing an er
ror even on that computation of $98 75. But as interest oughtlo have been
charged on it only for 4 months, say $130 31 ; there is an actual error here
again in the interest charged in this blended account, even supposing -the
$6,515 49, on which it is computed, was itself the right debit of $555 02,
But you see by that part of the entry in the account of Monson, De Forest
<f Son, from whence this debit of $6,515 49 in the blended account is taken,
that they are there debited for the whole of that part of ihe entry, only $3,-
924 23 ; and the interest on that sum for 4 months, is actually only
$78 48, so that there is not only an error in this debit itself, in the blended
account, as before stated, of $2,591 26 in the principal ; but also, an actual
error in the interest here charged to it of $606 85.
Once more, in the blended account, there is included in the debit of
$471 46 under date of 31st May, an item taken from the account of Mon
son, De Forest & Son, new books, of $107 72, on which interest is compu
ted in their proper account for 10 months, 24 days, and carried out $6 80 j
whereas in the blended account, interest is computed on the same sum for
only 7 months, which is $3 77, so that in this item there is $3 03 less, interest
charged in the blended account, than there is in their proper account.
And again, their is in their proper account, new books, under date of 28th
November, a debit of $167 66 principal, and of $5, 81 interest, say together
$173 47, not a particle of which appears in the blended account at all!
Thus far then, we have seen how this blended account, on the debit side
of it, actually differs from the debit side of the proper account of Monson,
De Forest & Son, new books.
Let us now see, how the credit side of these two accounts agree. Turn
then to the first credit in the proper account of Monson, De Forest Sc. Son,
under the date of 8th June, and you find the sum of $9,302 40, principal

L45|
and of the $314 05 interest, say together, $9,616 45, to their credit ; and in
the blended account there is a credit for the same things— say principal
}f8.906 38 only, and for interest $308 24 only, showing the sum of $401 83
less credited for these items in the blended account than is actually credited
lo them in their proper account.
And now, from the foregoing description of the blended account of Mon
son, De Forest Son, and a comparison of it with their proper accounts in
both books, the reader is enabled to judge whether it actually accomplishes
the purposes and objects for which il was compiled and made up. And
how far also, il actually disagrees with their proper accounts in both sets of
books ; also, whether such an account as this, made up as this is — not, indeed,
even in the names of Monson, De Forest & Son, but under a totally differ
ent name, title, and head. And which account, even if it had been made in
the proper names, and under the proper head of Monson, De Forest & Son,
yet, does not itself even exist at all in the books of either firm. I say from
all the facts here disclosed as to this account, the reader will judge whether
this blended account is, or is not in fact an account between Monson, De
Forest & Son, and those two firms either together, or with either of them
separately — and whether in fact such an account as this, can be sustained as
correct, legal, and right, either on the principles of book keeping, of law, or
of the rights of parlies and accounts.
We will now examine the commission account, new books, in reference
to these entries and accounts — and see whether thisaccount is right ornot as
it now stands; and, in the entry, of 15th Dec. old books. (Ap. C,) you see
that the new firm are there debited for commissions allowed the old firm by
the new, $1,808 47. The commission account in the new books, having pre
viously had credit for the whole of this $1,808 47 j therefore, (if this al
lowance is to be made at all) the commission account must be charged back
again for the whole of it, or that account most certainly will be wrong. But,
instead of that, you see by the first entry, new books, that Monson, De For
est, & Son, who had already once been charged, are actually again charged
with $203 36 of it. And, in the second, that commission account, which
had already once been credited for the whole of it, is here charged only,
$1,605 11 of it. So that even as these entries, new books, now stand, the
commission account is certainly wrong for the $203 36. But it will be re
membered, moreover, that 1 wholly object to this allowance being made at
all by the new firm to the old ; and, therefore claim that the commission
account, new books, is absolutely wrong for the whole of the $1,605 11,
which is charged to it in the second corresponding entry.
Let us now look at the interest account, new books, and see whether that
account is right or not, in reference to these entries and accounts as it stood
down to the 31st December. And here, turn again to the entry, old books,
| Ap. C,] you here see the new firm debited $6,585 28 for a balance of in
terest which the entry itself, as well as the account on which that interest is
stated, both declare to be, the balance of interest, which Monson, De Forest &
Son owe the old firm on account with them. And, by the corresponding part
of those entries, new books, you also seethe new firm, there debited again,
for the same identical matter and thing, under the title or head of inte
rest account. Without repeating here a single reason of my own, to
sfhow how entirely wrong these debits are in both books, the reader is
desired to examine attentively, the answers to the questions [1, 2, 3, 7, 8,11,
15, 17, 21, 29, and Axioms,] and then ask himself, whether any proposition
in nature can be plainer, than that the debit of this $6,585 28, to interest
account m these new books, is totally wrong ?
Again by the first of the corresponding part of the entries in the
new books ; you see interest account there credited $4,697 25, for "balance
of interest due us, new firm, on account made up this day," 15th December,
which after deducting from it certain items to amount of $600 74, leaves a
nett credit to interest account in these new books, of $4,096 51. And this
H

I 46]
credit my opponents all claim to be, legal, proper and right ; and as an ar
gument to show that it is so, they say, that as the new firm owed Monson,
De Forest & Son, a balance of interest of $1,888 03 on iheir proper account,
therefoie by charging them, and crediting the interest account, the difference
between this sum, and the $6,585 28 (which had in this very entry just
been wrong charged to interest account) say $4,697 25, and on ihe other
hand, by omitting ever to charge the interest account, new books, or to
credit Monson, De Forest & Son, the .$1,888 03, the above wrong charge
of $6,585 28 lo interest account in this entry, would thus be completely
neutralized or destioyed ; and nobody, as they Say, would be injured by it.
Without again repeating here, any of the reasons heretofore stated, to
show the gross inconsistency, the entire illegality, and the complete absur
dity of such an operation, or the injuries, which of necessity, it cannot
fail to work, to parties and accounts; yet it is seen that in the act of making
this very charge of $4,697 25 ; it is itself also equally neutralized and
destroyed to amount of $600 74, by deductions which are made from
it, so that tven on the principles claimed by my opponents themselves.in
reference to this charge. It is actually wrong $600 74 as it actually now
stands. But I would just ask here, what .possible connection with the original en
try and transfer of Monson, De Forest & Sons account, old books, or with
the corresponding entries of it in the new books, this balance of interest
of $1,888 03, which the new firm owed Monson, De Forest & Son on their
account, can possibly have either with lhat transfer itself, or wilh the bal
ance of interest, $6,585 28 included in it, or with these corresponding en
tries in the new books, all which are full and complete entries in them
selves; and are also in themselves, either right or wrong as they thus stand;
and if right, as my opponents affirm they are, then surely this charge of
$4,096 51, if it actually had any connection with them, would only make
them wrong — and if wrong, this charge would by no means make it right,
because it is for a totally different thing. Besides from what school of
ethics, or from what principles in book-keeping or law, or on what grounds
in reference to the rights of parties, I ask, is this power derived, which is
to authorize a book-keeper to omit to debit a party or an account, with such an
amount of interest, or even with any amount whatever which they actually
owe? I cannot but suppose that it would be equally as fraudulent au act
in a book-keeper, wilfully to omit to debit to a party or an account, a thing
which they actually owed, as it would be to debit either, for a thing they
didnot owe. And let the principle be once admitted, that book-keepers have
the right and power lo omit, both to debit one party and to credit another,
such an item as this balance of interest of $1,888 03; and on the other
hand, the right and power both, to debit one party and credit another such
an item as this $4,697 25. And I ask, what frauds might not, almost with
impunity be practised, whose rights and property might not almost without
the possibility of detection, be impaired or destroyed at pleasure, by any
book-keeper. But apparent as it indeed is, that this debit to interest account of the $6,-
585 28 is wrong, and that the credit to it also of the $4,697 25, and the de
ductions from that of the $600 74,are also wrong; and that, even if they were
right,yet that the interest account would still be wrong,even as the books now
stand, for the difference between the $6,585 28 and the $4,096 51, which is
$2,488 77. I say, apparent as all this is, yet it is seen that the balance of
interest $1,888 03, due from the new firm to Monson, De Forest & Son,
must, on every principle, actually be debited to the interest account, before
this account can ever be settled and dosed on these books; [See Ques. 11
and Axioms;] and when that is done, the interest account will then stand
wrong $4,376 8instead of only $2,488,77.
Let us now look at the state of the interest account, in reference to a
hargeof interest in it, which is wholly unconnected with any of the fore-

[47 |
going items. Please turn then to the proper account of Monson, De Forest
& Son, new books, here you see interest charged them, on all the items in
cluded uuder dale of 22d September, amounting lo $24,417 23, suy $678 52-
and also that the charge of the $20,493 in that entry, is expressly made to
reverse a debit to M. Monson, in old books, 4th September for 4,050 pounds
(being that part of 10,000 pounds, remitted Barings 1st February previous)
together with premium at 10 per cent, and interest; and also that (by calcu
lation) the interest on the above item as charged in this account for 4 months
is olny $409 86. Now turn to the account transferred, old books, and
yon there see Monson, De Forest & Son, debited with interest on the whole
10,000 pounds, of which the above 4,050 pounds was a part, from 1st Feb
ruary down to 31st December, wliich covers not only Ihe $693 interest,
which on old books was wrong credited to interest account, in the debit to
Monson, 4th September ; but also the four months interest en the $20,-
493, charged in this entry of 22d September, new books, amounting to
$409 86-so that $409 86 of the $678 52 here credited to interest account
is clearly a wrong credit to it ; aud this is fully proved by the entry itself,
wherein il states that the " amount charged latter, (M. Monson,) in books of
late firm, 4th September, which we now reverse, &c, was correct as it pre
viously stood," viz: was correct as it stood charged originally lo remittance ac-
count,lst February,(included in the 10,000 pounds,) and also correct in the ac
count transferred, where the interest is debited on tbe whole 10,000 pounds
as before stated, from 1st February lo 31st December. Now deduct
this wrong credit of $409 86 from the 678 52, interest on the whole entry,
and it leaves the amount of interest as due on the remaining part of the
entry, say $3,924 23 for 4 months, to be $268 66; whereas ihe actual inter
est on that sum for 4 months, is only $78 49, so that the interest account gets
credit, too much again, on this part of the entry by $190 18. And a few
simple figures meiely, are sufficient to demonstrate these errors.
But over and above all this, 1 affirm, (and the facts detailed in every item
in this entry fully prove it,) that all the transactions, matters and things,
mentioned in every item of this whole entry of 22d September, are transac
tions, matters and things, with which the new firm have no connection, inter
est or concern whatever, and if Monson, De Forest & Son, do owe interest
on them to any one, it is to the old firm alone, that they owe it, and not to
the new one.
This whole credit, therefore, of $678 52 to interest account, is not only a
total wrong debit to Monson, De Forest & Son, but also a total wrong credit
to interest account, for the whole amount of it.
The next account in the new books to which I refer, is that of Barings,
Brothers & Co. And, on looking at that account, it is seen that every item
in it (except a credit under date of 27th May, for transfer of a balance of
$707, from old book) consists entirely of transactions and business between
Barings and the old firm, who were known and acknowledged by them as
the agents of the two concerns, the brig Paulina and owners, and Monson,
De Forest & Son — and that the new firm never had a particle of interest
in any Of those transactions, or any connection or concern whatever with
that business. * •»
This, then being the fact— what, I ask had these accounts between Bar
ings and these parties to do on these books ? For, aside from the above
transfer, every single item in this whole account, is not only taken from an
account between Barings and the old firm, and embracing the affaiis of par
ties for Whom the old firm alone are the sole agents. But, the very trans
actions, thus taken from Barings accounts, and here placed on the books, ac
tually occurred, and were most of them in fact entered, on Baring's books
before this new firm even existed.
On what principle, then I ask again, can Barings be made debtors to this
new firm, for the items here charged them, $403 84, and creditors foe
$108 62 ; and, on the other hand, on what principle, can the cither parties be

I 48]
made creditors foi the $403 84 and debtors for the $108 62, on these
books? Besides, 1 as a partner in both firms, and also with both the other
parties, wholy disavow all these entries in these books, and utterly deny,
that any of the parties to them, are either debtors or creditors to this new
firm, for a particle of this whole account.
Once more, I ask— as this account of Baring's with the old firm, has never
yet been placed on old books— how, pray, can that account itself, and the
several accounts of brig Paulina, and owners, of Captain Ricketson, who is a
part owner, or of Monson, De Forest & Son, (and of M. Monson, who is a
partner in that concern,) or the individual or partnership accounts of James
Gould, a deceased partner in the old firm, ever be legally settled and
brought to a close on tho.-ie books, unlil all those accounis of Barings, are
regularly placed on the old books, and all the items in them, regularly enter
ed to the debit and credit of the respective accounts of all the other parties ?
[See Axioms.] I therefore, wholly deny that the new firm owe Barings a
cent of the $403 84 debited to them in this account, or that the new firm
owed them a cent of the $108 62, credited them in it — and I also affirm and
claim, that the transfer ciedit in it, of $707 is also wrong; because, when
all the above items of debit and credit are placed on the old books, (where
they must be,) that the old firm will then owe a balance of only $411 78,
instead of $707 — and then, and not till then, can a proper and correct trans
fer of their account be made from the old books to the new !
Again, you see a credit in this account, under date of 27ih May, for " pro
portion of interest due from us" (new firm) " to latter" (Barings) " on their
account, dated, London, December 10th" $15 70. Now, asthenewfirm had
not previous to 10th December, had any dealings or account with Barings,
on which this interest could have arisen— this interest must have been due
to them from the old, and not from ihe new firm, and therefore, the interest ,
account in the new books, is wrong charged with this $15 70, and this I
unhesitatingly affirm to be the fact, whether the account referred to be this
very account, or some other one which I have been prevented from examin
ing. Once more, in the proper account of Monson, De Forest & Son (Ap. P)
you will see a credit under date of 14th September, for 8 per cent, exchange
on the 377 33, charged Barings on the account, 4th September, " laken to
private account," that is, lo account of the new firm, "$30 19." Now
look at the facts declared in the charge of this $377 33 to Barings on the 4th
September, (Ap. S,) and there you will see that the account " received from
them," and from which, a transfer had been made by Barings, and " placed"
to the credit of " our private account, 84 pounds, 18 shillings," or 377 33,
was in fact, their account against Monson, De Forest & Son— and that Ihe
balance of it, 84 pounds, 18 shillings was by Barings placed to the credit of
De Forest & Son, on the 30th day of June, 1832. [Ap. R. | And now,
I ask, who are Monson, De Forest & Son ? — why, the old firm, and
M. Monson. What account of theirs is it, from whence this 84 pounds 18
shillings was taken and placed to credit of De Forest & Son ? — why an ac
count commencing 6th January, and end'ng (please notice) 30th June
1832— what then have the new firm to do wilh the 84* pounds, 18 shil
lings? Again, I ask, which firm of De Forest & Son is it, to whose credit
Barings placed this 84 pounds 18 shillings ? A.nd to all these questions one
single fact gives a full and decisive answer; namelv, the new firm of De
Forest & Son, did not even exist, until 29th of May, 1832, just one month
before Barings placed this 84 pounds, 18 shillings to the credit of De Forest
& Son. Therefore, it could not have been an account with the new firm, for
at that time Barings probably did not even know, that a new firm ex
isted. But if they did, they certainly then, had no account, whatever
with them. With these undeniable facts in view then, it seems perfectly
obvious, that the exchange account, new books (for it is debited to this ae-

I 49]
count) is actually wrong charged, this 8 per cent., on the $377 33, say
$30 19.
Again, I affirm, and appeal to the books themselves for the proof, that
there is an account Opened in the new books, Ledger, Fol. 295, which, as it
stood on the ledger, when I saw it, was headed in the following very pecu
liar manner, viz: " late De Forest & Son"
a "1-2" v
" VOY- pr. Brig Paulina, in Co. with B, Ricketson."
a A "1|2"
Interlined and marked as above— on which account, there appeared to be a
balance.due to the new firm, of $13,837 47. Y\ ell now, although not in my
power to say, whether this large balance arose, more or less from sales
made by this firm for that concern, or whether in part, from a transfer from
ihe books of the old firm — yet however; and in whatever way, it did
arise, one thing I venture lo affirm, without fear of refutation, viz: that lhat
whole account, relates to transactions, matters and things, growing entirely,
and wholly out of the business connections between the parties lo that voy
age, (which were B. Ricketson and tlie old firm) and them only. And, I also
afflrm,that the old firm and they only, were at its commencement, and still are
the only accounting agents of that concern, and who, a» such, are lokeep and
bring to a final close on their books, all the affairs and business of that concern,
and that the whole of its affairs and business, must be placed on the books
of the old firm, and to the proper account of lhat voyage, bejore that ac
count itself,or the books of lhat firm, or Mr. Gould's accounts, or his interest
as a partner, can ever be adjusted or settled. (See Ques. 22, Axioms.)
And, should it so be, that part of this balance consists of a transfer from
the old books ; or, should it arise in part, from sales made by the new firm
for that concern ; still, this does not alter the case at all, because, in refer
ence to a transfer, (if any hasbeen made,) it was not only needlessly, but im
properly made. For, whenever it may have been done, it was while there
was yet, various business, transactions and accounts, outstanding and unset
tled, in relation to that voyage— all which, on every priciple must be regu
larly placed ou the old books, to the debil or credit of that voyage account,
and there correctly settled aud closed, before any regular entrj and transfer
of lhat account can ever be made from the old books to the new ones. And
again, if any part of that balance arises from sales made by the new firm for
that concern— it is also just as necessary that the sale accounts of De Forest
if Son, new firm and their act. current with that voy.,should be rendered lojlhe
old firm, (for they only are the accounting agents lo which Capt. Ricketson
is ever to look for an adjustment and final settlement of that voyage as if
those sales had been made by Goodhue & Co., or by Barings of London—
and all their accounts also, must on every principle, be regularly entered
upon the voyage account of Brig Paulina, in old books, before any adjust
ment or settlement of that accounlcan ever be made — and therefore the ac
counts and estate of Mr. Gould can ever be legally adjusted and settled on
the old books. In view of these facts then, I venture to say (although so
miich in the dark in reference to the Paulina's account) that aside- from
any sales which the new firm may have made for that voyage account
and aside from any transfer entry which may be in it, every item of
that account, consists of transactions, matters and things, which relate
entirely, and only, to the parties to that voyage account andthe old
firm, and never ought at all, to have been placed upon the books of
the new firm. [See Ques. 22 and Axioms. | I also, further affirm, that there
is another account opened in the new books, Ledger, Fol. 257, under the
head of "Brig Paulina & Owners," on which (when I saw it) there was a
balance due to it from this firm of $7,620 42, the principal part of which ba
lance, I suppose arises( though not having seen the items I may be mistaken)

L50|
from the appraised value of that brig, when she was purchased by the new
from the old firm. But, of whatever matters or things that account itself, or
the above balance may consist, 1 hesitate not to say, that they relate en
tirely and only, to the parties who owned that vessel, and never ought at
all to have been placed upon the books of the new firm. But on the con
trary, not only ought all to have been placed upon the books of Ibe old firm,
but actually, must vet he placed there, and to Ihe proper account of that ves
sel, before any legal and correct adjustment and settlement of thai ac
count, and of those books, or of Mr. Gould's account and his- estate can
ever be made.
I have now presented the state and condition of the entries of 15th De
cember in both sets of books, and of all the accounts connected with them,
so far as I have been able lo obtain them. But there are two other very
large and important accounts, immediately connected with these entries,
which I have not, from first to last, been able to obtain, viz: the account of
De Forest & Son, new firm, on the old books, and that of De Forest & Son,
old firm, on the new books. It has not therefore, been in my power
to examine these accounts at all, any farther than as the names of
each firm appear in these respective entries. However grossly wrong
therefore, these accounts may be, in a thousand other particulars, I am
unable to say. Accordingly, in my remarks upon these accounts, I am
necessarily confined to what appears in reference to them, in these transfer
enties in the old books, and in the corresponding entries in the new books.
And now, although I have heretofore so clearly pointed out how entirely
wrong, each ofthe other accounts are, which are directly connected with Ihe
transfer entry of the account of Monson, De Forest & Son,- old books, and
with the corresponding entries in the new books ; yet, as 1 have so often been
met by my opponents, (in apparent triumph,) with the declaration, lhat
neither firm loses any thing by these entries, and that they are therefore
right. I shall now endeavor to show, that the accounts of the two firms
also, are entirely wrong, in both the old books and the new, in reference to
these entries.
But before we proceed to the direct examination of this last point, it is
necessary first, to have a clear understanding of the object and intent ofthe
original entry and transfer of the 15th December, old books, and ofthe cor
responding transfer entries in the new books, and to this end see Ques. 22.
Here then can be no mistake, as to the object to be accomplished by these
entries. The next thing, necessary to be clearly understood is, not only how this
object was to be accomplished, but, how also in conformity with the principles
of book-keeping and law, and also consistently with the rights and interests
of parties and accounts, that is, all the parties and accounts connected with
these entries. For, not only from the nature of those principles, and espe
cially in regard to the rights and interests of those parties and accounts,
must this be done ; but the very terms and conditions of our articles of
submission to the referees, expressly provide, that they shall be governed by
these principles, and those rights and interests alone, not only in the ex
amination of these entries, and every item in them, and also of every item
in every account connected with them, but also in their decision as to the
right or wrong of every one of them.
Take this case then just as it stands— apply these plain uncontrovertable
principles, and look at the effect of these entries, on the rights and interests
of all the parlies and accounts named in them, and see whether the object
which was to be accomplished in the transfer of this account, has indeed ac
tually been done, in accordance with those principles, and consistent with
the rights and interests of those parties and accounts. It is true, the old
firm are credited in the corresponding entries in the new books, (in reference
lo the balance of the account transferred,) just as much, as the. new firm
are debited for the same thing, in the original entry, in the old books; but

[51

lask, does that fact, afford any proof, that these two firms are vifhllu and
correctly, made debtors aud creditors in these respective transfer entries—

lask,
con when they do not transfer the true balance of MonsoV, be Fo7esT& Son's act •
or that these entries are not totally wrong also, in regard to the rights and in-
teiests of every other party and account named in them? It is a funda
mental principle, both in book-keeping and law, that when a person, party
or account, are charged with a specific article, matter or thing, that they are
debtors for that very article, matter or thing; and it is also a fundamental
principle, in both book-keeping and law, and demanded also by the rights
and interests of parties and accounts, that every entry made in books
should be true in itself; and that no person, party or account, should be
¦charged for any matter or thing they never' had, and for which they were
not indebted. If therefore, an entry be not true on the face of it, it "is cer
tainly wrong. Take then, first the entry,' old books, and test that whole en-
ry by the.se principles.
The new firm are made debtors here-, in reference to this transfer, not
for the actual balance of the account transferred, which was $81,655 60, but
only for the sum of $75,083 03, which this entry on the face of it declares
to be the balance of that account. This fact therefore, is not true in itself;
and accordingly, De Forest & Son, new firm, are not debtors foi a single
farthing of this whole entry, nor can this charge against them, or any part
of it, be sustained against them, either on the principles of book-keeping
or law.
The same fact exists also in reference to the corresponding entry in the
new books, as regards the credit there given to De Forest & Son, old firm,
for the $75,083 03. On the same principles, therefore, they are not credi
tors for a fanhing of the corresponding entry in the new books; and the
entry is totally wrong for the whole amount of the $75,083 03.
But in addition to all these facts and demonstrations, I affirm that both
these two firms, do each of them, most wrongfully, unjustly and illegally,
not only suffer loss, but receive gains, from these entries as they now stand.
Do you ask the proof? turn to the account transferred, [Ap. D] debit side,
under date of 15th December, and you see an omission to debit that account
with interest on $2,499, from the 9th August, 1831, down to 31st December,
1832, 16 months, 22 days, amounting to $211 17. Do not the old firm lose
this interest then, as that account stood when it was transferred ? And do
not Monson, De Forest & Son, unjustly receive the benefit of that omission?
Again, you also see in this same entry, an omission to charge the 1 per
cent, commission on it, (which is charged on every other item of remittance,)
amounting to $24 99— and do they not lose this sum also ? And do not
Monson, De Forest & Son unjustly get the benefit of that omission for same
amount? And now on the other hand, turn to M. Monson's account, |Ap.
A] debit side, under date of 4th September, and you see bim debited for in
terest on $19,800, from 1st February, to 1st September, 7 months, $693.
Now turn to the transferred account, [Ap. D| debit side, under date of 1st
February, and you there see that account debited, for interest on the whole
10,000 pounds, from 1st February, not merely to 1st September, but down to
31st December, and this charge you see embraces the interest $693 on the
same 4,050 pounds, which was charged Monson in his account, 4th Septem
ber. The interest account in the old books then, gets credit twice for the
very same thing. And do not the old firm here then (both wrongfully and
unjustly) get the benefit of this double credit to their interest account, which
is themselves, for this sum of $693 ; and are not either Monson, De Forest
& Son, or M. Monson, wrongfully and unjustly charged for this $693?
But here the question in a moment occurs, which of them is wrong
charged ; turn then to the account of M. Monson, new books, [Ap. L] cred
it side, under date of 22d September, and you have the answer— you here
see him credited back (in the new books, notice) this identical $693 ; be
cause it was wrong charged to him, (in the old books it certainly means)

L m 1
4th September. It was M. Monson then, and not Monson, De Forest &
Son, who was wrong charged with this $693 in the old books ; and hefa
again another question instantly occurs— who is charged with this $693 in
the entry 'of 22d September, new books? Turn then to the proper ac
count of Monson, De Forest & Son, new books, [Ap. P] debit side, under
date «f 22d September, and you there see them debited for this very $693,
because it had been wrong charged to M. Monson in old books, Fol. 221,
viz : 4th September.
Here then we have entire demonstration, from the several accounts re
ferred to, that this identical interest $693, was twice credited lo the old firm
under the head of interest account in their books; and that one of those
wrong credits, arose from a wrong debit of it to M. Monson, 4th Septem
ber on those books ; and also, that in the entry which was made 22d Sep
tember in tlie new books, to reverse that wrong debit to Monson, 4th Sep
tember, old books. Monson, De Forest & Son, and not the old firm, were
actually charged with this item of interest $693. I don't stop here to prove,
that this charge of $693 to Monson, De Forest & Son is a double clurge to
them, nor lhat they are also again double charged in this very account, 4
months interest, not only on the $19,800, but on the $693 also, say from 1st
September to 31st December, for both these facts, it would seem, are not
only fully disclosed by thestalements here made.but haveboth heretofore been
abundantly proved. And now to the point before us, as the old firm had
credit twice in their books for this $693 — where, I ask, have they ever been
debited back for il, on either set of books ? I answer, no where. And,
therefore, as these entries and all the accounts connected wilh them now
stand, the old firm do actually, and beyond all dispute, not only unjustly,
but illegally receive the benefit of that double credit of $693, to interest
account in old books, and their account is wrong therefore for this sum.
Having shown that the old firm actually are wrongfully, illegally and un
justly, made both losers and gainers by these entries and accounts as they
now stand. We will now see whether the new firm also, are not made
losers and gainers by them — take then those parts of the two correspond
ing entries, new books, which alone have reference to this transfer of 15th
Dec. ; [Ap. C.J and you there indeed see the old firm credited all the several
particular items and amounts, which were debited to the new firm in the or
iginal entry, old books. But as I said before, does this prove that a single item
in this whole entry is right ? On the contrary, it is a fundamental principle
in book-keeping and law, and indispensibly required by the rights of parties
and accounts, that every entry made in books, must be," not only true in itself,
but must also adequately perform the purpose,and fulfil the object, for which
it is made,or otherwise it must be wrong. Now without going through a state
ment of facts, principles and arguments, to prove that these corresponding
entries do not actually perform what they purport to do ; and, that every
item in them, is wholly incorrect, and in fact untrue, it would seem enough,
that these facts, principles and arguments have been sufficiently examined
before, to fully demonstrate that they do not perform what thev purport to
do; and that they are wholly incorrect and absolutely untrue in themselves.
On every principle then, the old firm are wrong credited the whole amount
of these corresponding entries, $81,680 60; and the new firm therefore, do
not owe them one farthing of that amount. Are not the new firm then,
wrongfully, illegally and unjustly made debtors to the old firm, by these
entries for the whole $81,680 60 ?
Again, turn to the account transferred, [Ap. D] debit side, under date of
I5th December, and you see that account charged with the balance of in
terest stated to be due on it $6,585 28. Now look at the entry l'5th Decem
ber, old books, [Ap. C]. and you there see the new firm, and not Monson,
De Forest & Son, actually charged and made debtors, for that balance of in
terest $6,585 28; then look at the corresponding entry, new books, [Ap. C]
and here you see the new firm, in the name of their interest account, acttr-

I 53]
ally charged over again this identical balance of interest $6,585 28. Do
not the new firm then, as this part of those entries now stand, suffer a loss of
this whole $6,585 28. And do not Monson, De Forest & Son, who lo this
day, have never been charged a cent of it any where, actually receive the
benefit, and that most unjustly and illegally, of this whole sum? Here
then, is perfect demonstration, not only from the principles of book-keeping
and law, but also from absolute fact, that the new firm, as this part. of the
corresponidng entry now stands, do actually suffer a loss of this whole sum
of $6,585 28.
Once more, it is seen by the entry, 15th December, old books, that the
new firm are there charged with an allowance for " Commissions returned
these books, $1,808 47." Well the whole amount of these commissions, (as
every book-keepei will at once see,) had originally gone to the credit of the
commission account in the new books; and therefore, if this allowance in
favor of the old firm, was even to be made at all, most certainly the com
mission account in the new books, must on every principle be charged back
again for the whole of that allowance, say $1,808 47.
But look now at the corresponding entries, new books, [Ap. C] and you
see the commission account charged With only $1,605 11 of the $1,808 47,
and that Monson, De Forest & Son, who had already been once charged
with the whole of it, are here actually charged over again for the amount
which is short charged to commission account above, say $203 36 j so that
as these entries now stand, the new firm do actually, yet unjustly and ille
gally, receive the benefit of this wrong charge to Monson, De Forest & Son,
and therefore, unjustly gain by them this sum of $203 36. But as I have
before stated, I as a partner in both these firms, totally disavow this whole
allowance, and claim not only that Monson, De Forest & Son, are wrong
charged for the $203 36 ; but also, that the new firm, in their commission
account, are wrong charged for the $1,605 11, and that too, both illegally
and unjustly, because done without my knowledge, and against my protesta
tion, will and consent, as such partner.
But again, it is seen by the first of these corresponding entries, new books,
[Ap. C,] that the new firm, in name of interest account, gets credit on their
own books for $4,697 25 (less deductions from it $600 74,) say nett $4,-
096 51; which this entry declares to be a balance of interest due to thatfirm
on their account, while their proper account on those books, actually shows
a balance of interest to be duefrom that firm, to Monson, De Forest & Son, on
that very day of $1,888 03. And if you read the questions and answers on
tiiis account with attention, you will have the whole history and object of
the blended account, from whence this charge of $4,096 51 is taken, and
the affirmation of our book-keeper also, that the above balance of interest
on their proper account $1,888 03 is still due and owing from the new firm
to Monson, De Forest & Son, and not from them, as this charge declares,
and that it had never yet (23d March, 1833) been credited to them.
But I will not trouble the reader with any more facts or arguments to
prove that this credit of $4096 51 to the new firm, iiUheir interest account,
is entirely wrong, because it is believed, that enough has already been shown
before to demonstrate, not only that it is wrong, but also entirely groundless.
Are not then, Monson', De Forest & Son wrong charged for this balance of
interest $4,096 51? and do not the new firm wrongfully and unjustly, re
ceive the benefit of that wrong debit to them ? Had not the interest ac
count in old books, already been credited for this very thing in the charge
of $6,585.28, which was made against this new firm, in the entry ol
15th December, old books? Most surely then, as these entries now stand,
the new firm, unjustly and wrongfully, receive the benefit of this wrong
credit 4,096 51. . , ,, .. „„ ;.
But conclusive as these facts and these principles assuredly are, there ^is
moreo ver, one fact, which is not only inseparably connected with all these en-
H

iries,b«t also with all those principles, and all the rights and interests of the
parties and accounts named in them, which is antecedent to, and back of, ah
the preceeding facts, and which in and of itself alone, affords the most indu
bitable and conclusive proof, that these entries are all totally wrong, and thai
both these firms are wrong debited, and wrong credited respectively, for Vat
whole of them ; and that fact is, that the account which is made the ground
and basis of the original entry and transfer in the old books, is not the
true and proper account of Monson, De Forest & Son, as it then existed in
those books. With this single fact in view, it is deemed superfluous to
add any thing more to prove then that the whole of these entries and all
the accounts connected with them are entirely wrong.
But enough it would seem has been already stated,to show most conclusive
ly, that each of these firms, do actually, most wrongfully and illegally, both
suffer loses, and receive gains, by these entries, and by various debits and
credits in the several accounts connected with them, as they now stand',,
yet I will refer to one more, among the many other cases which actually'
exist to show the same thing. «
Turn then to the proper account of Monson, De Forest & Son, new books,1
[Ap. P,] debit side„under date of 22d September, and you see them charged!
interest on the whole amount of that entry, say $24,417 23, from 1st Sep- '
tember to 31st December $678 52. Now turn to their transferred account,
old books, [Ap. D,] debit side, under date 1st Feb., and you there ste them'
charged interest on 10,000 pounds, from 1st February to 31st December
$3,168 47, and this 10,000 pounds (it must be particularly noticed) actually-
includes the 4,050 pounds, or $19,800, on which interest is charged as above
stated in their proper account, 22d September. Here, then, seems to be"
perfect demonstration, that as Monson, De Foi est & Son are charged inter
est on the $19,800, in the account transferred from 1st Febiuary down to
31st December ; and again, on the same $19,800 in their proper account,
new books, from 1st September down to 31st December ; [.therefore, thif
latter debit for interest on it, must be a double charge against them ; and as
this last entry expressly states, that the former debit to them of 1st February
" was correct as it" then " stood ;" therefore this last debit of interest to
them on the $19,800 in their proper account, new books, is a wrong credit
to interest account in these books for 4 months, so that the new firm
here gets credit wrongfully, for 4 months interest on $20,493, in this
part of the charge against Monson, De Forest <f Son, 22d September
in their proper account, new books, amounting to $409 86. And as it has,
therefore, been so abundantly proved, that this new firm have no interest
or concern, and no connexion whatever, with any of the other items incor
porated in that entry, aud that they are transactions between the parties
named in them, and the old firm alone ; and that they are all not only wrong
fully placed in these new books, but also that none of the accounts of the
parties and accounts named in them, nor the account of our deceased part
ner, Mr. Gould, nor yet the old books themselves, can ever be legally ad
justed, settled and closed, until all these transactions, matters and things,
are regularly placed on the old books, to the proper account of all those
parties and accounts respectively. Therefore, it is equally demonstrable,
that the debit of interest on the remaining part of this entry to Monson,
De Forest & Son, 22d September, new books, which is $268 66, is a total :
wrong credit to the new firm, in their interest account, and therefore, they
wrongfully get the benefit of this sum also, in this entry ; so that not only
do Monson, De Forest & Son wrongfully suffer the loss, but the new firm
actually and wrongfully receive the benefit of the whole amount of this in
terest, say $678 52.
I am now through with the examination of the entries of the 15th De
cember, in both books, and of such of the accounts connected with them, as
I have been able to obtain; and although I believe, that I shall be found cor-

1 oo |
reel iii all the fads I have stated, in all tho principles I have laid down and
in all the arguments I have used; yet, when it is considered in what an ex
traordinary manner, entries are made in our books— how blindly incoher
ently, and often incomprehensively they are expressed ; and in 'many in
duces, how entirely contrary they are to the very facts stated in them.—
then we look at the numerous wrong entries, which in only these entries
and accounts, have so often been made in our books. And again, at the
manner, language and description of the entries, which have again been
made, to reverse those wrOng entries, and make them right.sometimes in the
books where the wrong entries exist, and sometimes indeed, in the books of
anoiher firm. When it is recollected how frequently the very dangerous, if
not even utterly inadmissable practice is indulged,of making deductions from
entries,and in one case,a deduction again from a previous deduction. [See Ap.
C, first entry, new books.] And in another case, not only a deduction from
regular entry, but that deduction declared to be made for the express pur
pose of reversing a wrong entry against one of the parties, in the books
f another firm. [See Ap. P, debit side, date 22d September, foot of entry.]
When it is remembered how an account has been " made up," partly
only from the proper account, and partly, and almost altogether from
another account, which (observe) had actually been already settled and
closed on the books ; aud that the account thus " made up," was actual
ly transferred, as the proper account of the party in those books ; and that
too, although the balance of that account actually differs in amount, $6,-
.72 57, not only from the sum which was transferred as that balance ; [See
Ap. C, old books $75,083 03 ;] but also from the sum which the Ledger
account of that party declares to be the balance of their account, viz : $75-
083 03, (and this latter fact, I desire may be particularly noticed here, be
cause it is important, and has not been stated before,) and finally, (for it
would seem almost endless to detail all the errors,defects and discrepancies,)
-then it is borne in mind, that another account has again been " made up ;"
.ne declared object of which was, "to balance and close the account of
Monson, De Forest & Son. on the old books ;" and also " to adjust and set
tle the balance $23,370 93, which was due from thein, on their account," in
the new books : [See Ques. on blended account, Ap. Q,] but which account
does not even contain the names of Monson, De Forest & Son, or the
name of either firm of De Forest & Son, or even exist at all in the books
of either firm ; and which, not only contains both debits' and credits,
which are not in, and leaves out both debits and credits, which| are in,
the proper accounts of Monson, De Forest & Son in both books ; and
which, moreover, even in what it purports to contain of each of their ac
counts in both books, actually differs in many instances, so materially, not
only in matters and things themselves, and in the description of theii, and
statements regarding them ; but also in several instances, in the actual
amounts — that I think, I hazard little in declaring, that I do not believe it to
be in the power of man, to take that account, and without the aid of their pro
per accounts in both books, nor even with them, without being first inform
ed that it purported to be a copy of both those accounts, and be able to as
certain, or comprehend, either, who are the several parlies to that account,
or what account indeed it is.
I say, when all these things are duly considered, and when, moreover, it
is further considered, that for many months, and especially during the whole
of my present examination of those entries, and the accounts connected
with them. I have been wholly deprived of a sight at our books, and of
all information and light, which the original entries in them might afford,to
aid me in these examinations. It would indeed seem wonderlul, if I had not
been almost necessarily led into many errors. If, therefore, some mistakes
or miscalculations should be found, I trust the reader will not, from such a
circumstance, hastily assume, that all the other statements, facts, arguments,

Loo |
and principles which I have made, adopted and claimed, are also erroneous ;
but t^hat he will nevertheless, give the whole subject a thorough and candid
examination. And if, on the other hand, it shall be found, that most, if not
all the numerous errors which have been stated, do actually exist, it will
serve to confirm all that I have claimed ; and prove not only, that these en
tries, and the accounts connected with them are wrong ; but also, that our
books throughout are wrong.
With these remarks, I now submit this unhappy case ; and I confidently
ask every candid and impartial person, who shall read these pages, and who
has even an ordinary acquaintance with accounts, and with the principles of
book-keeping, of law, and of the rights and interests of parties and accounts,
whether it is indeed possible, that these entries and accounts, and the books
of these two firms, can-be right according to those principles and laws, and
consistent with the rights and interests of those parties and accounts, as
they now stand 7
In reference to the highly, respectable, and very intelligent gentle
men, the referees, as well as to the distinguished lawyer, who they consulted,
I feel bound to say, lhat under the circumstances of pressure of business,
tfip complicated nature cf the accounts, and the still more complicated and
uninteliigable manner in which entries are made in them ; the great variety
of accounts which were laid before them ; many of them under the same
title and head, yet belonging to different parties and different firms ; and
others, being accounts merely made up on paper, which do not either com
pare with, the proper accounts in the books, or even so much as exist in
them. And moreover, separate as they were from each other, with little
time or opportunity for mutual consultation or examination, lt is not,
indeed, so much a matter of wonder and surprise, that they came to
the sweeping conclusion which they (apparently) did. Yet, having now
spread the accounts before them in print, and distinctly pointed out the many
errors in fact, as well as a vast many more, in reference to the principles of
book-keeping and law, and also in reference to the rights and interests of
parties and accounts ; I confidently make my appeal to all those gentle
men, and beg them (laying aside for the time, opinions formed under the cir
cumstances above stated) to go through with a thorough and unprejudiced
examination of this whole subject, in all its various details, items and
accounts, as well as the principles of book-keeping and law, and the rights
and interests of parties and accounts involved in them ; and then, as candid,
high-minded and honorable men, to say, whether they do still believe that
" in respect to the entries" of 15th December, no part of them actually do
'! involve any violation of the fundamental principles of book-keeping or
law ofthe state, nor incompatibility with the rights and interests of the parties
concerned in them." And taking these entries, " as the ground of their
judgment," they do still believe, that " the books" of the latpj and pre
sent firms, composed as they are of different persons, are not-indeed ac
tually wrong, " in reference to the rights and interests of" at least some " one
or more of the parties referred to.in the several entries, as they now appear
on the face of them.''
I also appeal to my partner, first as a partner, in both those firms, and as
such equally with me, most deeply interested in the question, whether the
books and accounts of those respective firms are in fact, actually " right
or wrong, as they now stand ;" and again entreat him, as he regards his
own interest and character— as he regards the interests and characters of
these two firms, and the parties belonging to each of them— and as he esti7
niates and respeclsthe rights and interests of the numerous parties connect
ed with those firms respectively, to give this whole subject, a personal,care-
full, candid, and thorough investigation, so that he may be able to judge for
himself, whether indeed and in truth, these books and accounts, are actually
right, or whether they are wrong, as they now stand.

L57]
And finally and lastly, I appeal to him as one of the excutors on the es
tate of our deceased partner, Mr. Gould, and ask him, as such executor,
how he expects, that Mr. Gould's individual and partnership accounts wilh
the late firm, can ever, in any possible way, be brought to a correct, and
legal adjustment and settlement, as those books now stand ? Aud how as
such executor, he is ever to settle Mr. Gould's estate ?

Questions put to various persons, in relation to
entries and accounts in the Books of De Forest
& Son, and to various matters, facts and princi
ples involved in them ; with their answers :
On the 25th January, I addressed the following inquiries to Mr. G. Miller
(the Book-keeper of Messrs. N. & G. Griswold,) and to Mr. S. Baldwin, ac
companied by the account of Monson & De F. & Son, on which, a balance
of interest was stated to be due to the old firm- to amount of $6585,28, viz :
[No. 1.]
What entry must be made on the books to settle the item of $6585,28,
balance of interest due from Monson & De F. & Son, to the late firm of De
Forest & Son, and give the form of such entry ?
[No. 2.]
I also desire you to say, if there is any other correct way by which
on the principles of Book-keeping, this interest entry can be put on the
books, so as to show the actual balance of Monson & De F. & Son's whole
account on those books, except the one which you shall state.
And in my letter to Mr. Miller, I added the following remarks, which I
think were also submitted to Mr. Baldwin, viz.
[No. 3.] New-York, 25 January, 1832.
Mr. G. Miller :
Sir, — I do not ask for a hasty reply. I wish you to think upon it, and
satisfy your own mind fully on the point, before you decide. I invite you to
tax all your knowledge, and all your ingenuity, and see if you can, pos
sibly propose any other form of entry, by which, according to the rules
of Book-keeping any other party than Monson & De, F. & Son can pro
perly be debited for that item of interest ; they being the very and only
persons or party who owe it. And in deciding it, allow me to suggest some
facts which seem from necessity to be involved in the question, and then
some acknowledged rules and the laws applicable to the case.
The first facts are that this is an account between D. F. & Son, late firm
(the parties to which were the two De Forest's and James Gould,) on one
side, and Monson & De. F. & Son on the other ; and therefore, any entry on
that account made in the Books, must affect the interests and rights of all
parties to that account and ought to aflect the rights, &c. of no other persons
or parties, because no other persons or parties have any interest in it. And
the reasons for this, seems manifestly to be.— 1st, That in regard to all per
sonal accounts the' rules of Book-keeping, as well as the laws require
that all entries made, on these Books relative to that account must,
be made in the names of the parties to it. Why ? Because, all authors on
Book-keeping, lay it down as a fundamental principle ; and because the law_s
demand it. Indeed so tenacious are the laws on that point, that if in this
very item of interest, you make Monson & De F. & Son and G. Miller, Dr. on
these books, instead ofthe names of the persons only, who actually owe this

12]
interest. You not only violate the above principle, bul the law too, for by
adding the name of Miller, you have made your Book state what cannot be
true, viz : you make your Book say that Miller owes that interest to De F.
& Son ; when the account on theface of it, demonstrates that he is no party
to the account, and that instead of his owing them a penny of it, it is due
from other persons in their own proper names I
Does such an entry then speak truth ? and suppose you sue M. & De F.
&Son and G. Miller for the amount, for which your Books, by this entry,
makes them all Dr. ; would a Court of Justice for a moment sustain such a
claim ? besides; Mr. Gould is dead, and his executors, must, and will claim
his rights in regard to this account. What will be their first step ? call for
the account, and what will the account shew ? Why manifestly, that the
interest is still due and owing, because no charges have been made on the
books, against the proper personal names, of the only persons who owe
the money. Can the two surviving partners, who are of necessity entrust
ed with the settlement of these Books, justify themselves, against the claims
of W. Gould's executor, by telling them, (what the Books themselves declare)
that they have debited that interest to other persons, and other parties ?—
would not the first reply to that beonthe part of the executors; the account
you have rendered us shew directly the reverse of that, inasmuch as on the
face ofthe account, the balance of Interest still appears to be due andthat no
other persons or parties ever owed it, or could, consistent with the princi
ples of book keeping and law, be made debtors for it.
Besides, would not his executors claim, that you must on every principle,
charge this interest to the proper names of the parties to the account — for
until that is done the account can never be settled, and closed on the Books,
and till this account is closed, Mr. Gould's estate can never be settled !
Again — would not the executors say, you have no right to give up his in
terest, in this claim against the parties who owe it, and trust it to other per
sons, and lastly on this point the parties against whom you have charged
this interest — the moment they find they are so debited, disavow it, and de
clare it to be a wrong charge against them.
With these remarks, I have only to desire you to examine the rules laid
down in' Mairs Book-keeping, page 20 and 21,— six of which rules, are there
said to be contained in the following one, viz :
"The account to which any thing comes in, or for which any thing goes
out is lo bs charged or made Dr. and the account for which an} thing goes
out, or for which any thing comes in, is to be discharged or made Creditor.
L. DE FOREST.
Both these gentlemen gave the form of the entry to be made as follows, viz :
Monson, De F. & Son, Dr. to interest account 1
for balance of interest due on account made > $6585,28.
up to this date. j
And to the second question Mr. Miller replied " there is none" — and Mr. Bald
win as follows :
"To your second enquiry ,-^-1 do not see any other way to put that entry
on the Books to show the actual balance of Monson & De F. & Son's whole
account, on those Books, on a direct application to their accounts.
I addressed substantially the same questions (omitting names of part
ners) to Jas. Bennett, Esq. accountant, and substantially the same answers
were given by him.
Durring the controversy with Mr. Burrill, the following questions were
put to him, and the annexed answers were given by him to each, viz.
[No. 4.] New- York, January 28, 1833.
Mr. Jno. E. Burrill :
SIR,— Did you, or did you not, undertak to direct and assist our Book-

L8]
keeper, in making entries on the Books of the late firm, relative to- an ac
count in those Books, with Monson cf De F. & Son.
I Answer— That I did not undertake to direct and assist in making the en
tries above mentioned but that they were made by Robert Rodman, from the
Books of the present concern, and are in his hand writing. J. E. BURRILL.
[No. 5.]
Mr. Borhill— Did you or did you not, soon after thelate firm of De For
est &Son was dissolved, and the new firm was commenced, have directions
from the latter, to direct and assist our Book-keeper, in keeping the Books
of each concern ?
I answer, yes. J. E. BURRILL.
[No. 6.1
Ques.— Did you, or did you not consider yourself master of the art or
science of Book-keeping ?
I do. J. E. BURRILL.
[No. 7.]
New- York, 28th January, 1833.
Mr. Borrill :
SIR, — We find on examination of the accounts of Monson & De Forest,
on the Books of the late firm, as drawn off, and on which an interest ac
count is stated by our Book-keeper, showing a balance of interest due from
them to said firm of $6585,28. Will you please examine those Books and
inform us whether or not, that item of interest has ever been charged to
Monson cf De F. & Son, on those Books ?
I find on looking over the Books, that the interest to which you allude
above, is charged, together with the balance of the account of Monson,
& De Forest, to the new concern of De Forest & Son, who undertook to
liquidate the pending transactions of the late firm ; and who transfered the
whole of the said account to their own Books and then made it up entire with
the interest on it, which interest appears in said Books at debit of said Mon
son & De Forest, less a balance in their favor from transactions with the
new concern. J. E. BURRILL.
Mr. Brrill — Your answer above does not meet the question, inasmuch
as it relates to a totally different entry in the Books, from the one enquired
about. Please look at the question again and give a direct answer to that
question alone.
To your questions as last put, I answer, no. J. E. BURRILL.

[No. 8.]

28th January, 1833.

Mr. Burill :
SIR,— Do the laws of this state, give the parties rto an account, a right to
demand interest, according to the state of the account— or do they not?
They do. J- E. BURRILL.
Ques.— Do, or do not, the rules and principles of Book-keeping'require that
all Personal accounts, must be kept in the Names of the parties to it ?
They do J. E. BURRILL.
[No. 10.]
Qnes. Do, or do not, the laws of this State require the same thing in re
gard to Personal accounts ? „tt 
They do J- E- BURRILL.
[No. 11.]
Ques. When an account is drawn off, and an interest account stated on it,
which shews a balance of interest to be due to the party who own the Book*.

[4]
Please say to what account according to the principles of Book-keeping, and
the laws of this State— must the balance of interest above refered to be
charged? I answer— "As a generel abstract rule," the interest should be charged
to the account itself— it may be charged to other parties under certain cir
cumstances, and be in conformity to the principles of Book-keeping and the
laws of the State. J- E. BURRILL.
Mr. B. — Your answer does not meet the question ; inasmuch as it does
not enquire as to an Abstract rule, nor an Abstract law, nor to other parties,
and other circumstances ; but to a Particular Entry, to be made on a par
ticular account. Please look at the last question again, and give a direct
answer !
I answer. — In the case ofa simple account made up to a given date and have
ing referance " to no other parties nor to any other circumstances," I should
charge the interest to the account itself and bring down the nett balance in
the Leger. J. E. BURRILL.
Mr. Borrill : — The question asked, relates only to a simple personal ac
count, and the item of interest on it, made up to a given date, and not as
having reference to any other parties, nor any other circumstance. Please,
therefore, answer the question direct.
I answer as above, — " I should charge the interest to the account itself."
J. E. BURRILL.
Ques. Please give hereon the form pf the entry ?
A.B. Dr. to Interest.
For balance due from him this day, pr. account rendered (by A. B. — I sup-
$ 
pose the party owing the interest.) J. E. BURRILL.
[No. 12.]
Ques. Did you, or did you not, ever consult with, or make known to ei
ther of the Messrs. De Forest's the entry, which you say Robert made in
the Books ofthe late firm, on the 15th December last— until long after it was
made by him 1
I have no recollection of the matter— I may never have mentioned it at all
—I think I did not until lately, as it so happened. J. E. BURRILL.
After getting Mr. Burrill's answers as above, to the foregoing question, I
put the following to him ; all of which, he refused to answer— but all of
which were afterwards replied to by Mr. Bennett.
[No. 13.]
New- York, 30th January, 1833.
Mr. Burrill— If a person or party, makes a charge in their Books, against
another person or party, for a particular thing, which the entry itself des
cribes. Does, or does not, the charge so made, and the entry itself, (on the
principle of Book-keeping and by the laws of this state as applicable to that
charge,) make the person or party, against whom it is made a debtors or Dr,.
for the particnlar things, so charged to them.
I say that the person so charged, is made a Dr. in the books for that par
ticular thing. JAMES BENNETT.
| No. 14.]
., _ _, New- York, 30th January, 1833.
Mr. Burrill.— If a person, say A, is by another person, say B, made Dr.
on the book of B, for a particular thing.
Is, oris not B, (before he can by the laws of this state, recover against
A, for the thing, for which he is so made Dr.) bound toprove, not only that

A. is, rightfully and properly charged for that particular thing ; but also is
truly, justly, and legally indebted to B for it. B '
In a specific action he is bound lo prove it. JAMES BENNETT.
11th January, 1833.
[15.]
_, _ „ 28th January, 1833.
Mr. Uorrill.— Can, or cannot, an account on the books of a person or
party, which on thejace of it, shows a balance of $1000 due upon it from
the other person or party named in it, ever be dosed on those books, (accord
ing to the principles of book-keeping, and the laws of this state,) so as lhat
the books and the account, shall on the face of them, show that the account
has (in some way) been settled ; and that the person or party, owing that
balance, has (in some way) been exonerated from their liability for that
balance, until an entry is made on those books, and to the credit of that ac
count and in the names of the person or party, who on the face of thai ac
count stand debtors for that balance ?
It cannot. JAMES BENNETT.
[No. 16.] 28th January, 1833.
Mr. Burrill. — When a party having an account on his books, with
another person or party, and has rendered that account to the other party,
which shows on the face of it a balance of $1000 to be due from that other
person or party, does, or does not, the books of that party, and the account
on those books, (provided all the items in that account are truly, justly, and
legally enteredon it) constitute a valid and legal demand against the other
party, as long as those books, and that account on the face of them, show
the balance above to be due on them ?
This is a simple but pertinent question, and 1 must decide it in the affirma
tive. JAMES BENNETT.
Mr. Burrill, having doubtless, become satisfied, judging from the reluctant
answers which he had already given to my questions, as well as from the
tenor of those which he refused to answer, that he could no longer sustain
the ground he had so confidently asserted, and so pertinaciously maintained,
addressed me a letter on the 2d February, in which he makes the following
singular, yet in some respects frank concessions, viz :
[No. 17.]
New- York, Saturday, 2d February.
S[R. — The matter at issue, is the correctness or incorrectness of the en
tries made on the books of the late and present firm of De Forest & Son,
in the transfer of the account of "Messrs. Monson & De Forest & Son,"
from the former to the latter books ; you having affirmed that the said entries
were wrong, while I asserted that they were correct.
Whenever I have asserted this, opinion, I have done so on the~principle
which I understood you to take, that the entries must be all taken together on
both books.
Whenever you disavowed this principle, and the transfer in queston, I pro
nounced the said entries incorrect in loto.
From the foregoing, it appers to me, that if the controversy be referred to
the single entry, mentioned under two the last heads, it will be found that
weboth concur entirely in opinion in lhat matter : if I have been understood
at any time to have said any thing at variance with what I now state, my
meaning has been entirely misapprehended. Most respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
J. E. BURRILL.

[6]
I deem it proper in reference to his concessions in the foregoing letter,
to add a few remarks here ; and in the first, he very frankly and candidly
slates what the real question in dispute between us was. But his assertion
in the second is totally incorrect— because it was on the very converse ofthe
principle on which he here says, he "supported his opinion ;" and which
principle he also says, he " understood me to take," that a controversy ever
arose between us. For I have never ceased, from the moment I first saw
those entries, to insist, not only that the entries in the old books were totally
wrong ; but also, that no entries which could be made in another set of
books, could possibly make those wrong, entries right.
And in reference to the third, it is indeed not a little singular, that he
should make a merit now, of pronouncing all the entries in both sets of
books to be wrong in toto, as he here does, and on the very ground alone too,
which was the whole cause of our controversy. For he distinctly stated in
his first concession, that I affirmed,|lhat the entries in the books of both firing
in reference to the transfer, were all wrong; and that he on the contrary
asseited they were right. And this controversy he maintained against me
for near a month, (producing the most painful consequences between my
partner, who joined with him, and myself,) and until, as before stated, he
had condemned himself out of hisown mouth.
And in reference to the fourth, it is sufficient to say, that I never ceased
both to affirm and claim that the entries in each set of books, were wrong
altogether, whether taken abstractedly or together.
But to show the very ground on which Mr. Burrill himself, (as well as
myself,) actually did place this controversy when it first commenced. 1 re
fer to the following testimony of Mr. G. Miller, and our book-keeper, Mr
Thomas. New-York, 21st Februay, 1833,
Mr. G. Miller :
SIR. — Will you do me the favor to reply to the following questions, viz:
When you was requested to examine certain entries, in the books of the
late and present firms of De Forest & Son, which 1 claimed were wrong, and
Mr. Burrill claimed were right. [No. 18.]
Did or did not, I refer you particularly lo an entry on the books of the
late firm, which among othpr things, purported to transfer the balance
of Monson & De Forest & Son's account, to the books ofthe new firm?
Yes. G. MILLER.
[No. 19.]
Did, or did not, I claim, and Mr. Burrill admit, that if that entry was
wrong, all the entries in the books of the new firm, purporting to corres
pond with it, were also wrong; and if that entry was right, all the others
were right also ?
Yes. G. MILLER
[No- 20.]
Did or did not, Mr. Burrill say to this effect, that, although he did not
make the entry last referred to ; yet he fathered it, and approved it as a cor
rect one, and claim it to be correct?
He did. G, MILLER.
I was present at the above time and heard the conversation, and give the
same answers as Mr. Miller. Wm. S. THOMAS.
Here then, Mr. Burrill puts the whole matter in dispute between us on

m
the single point— that if the entry in the old books, viz: that entry by itself
abstractedly was wrong.. Then all the corresponding entries in the new
books were also wrong. As then in his fourth concession, Mr. Burrill fully
admits, that when the matter was put in the shape of a single abstract entry
in the old books, that it was incorrect also. And as it is here fully proved
that he himself did so put it ; therefore we have Mr. Burrill's own full and
explicit admissions, not only that the entry in the old books was wrong in
toto ; but that the corresponding entries in the new books were wrong also.
But to place the subject in a still stronger light. I refer to another ques
tion put to Mr. Miller in the same letter with his answer; and which
was also afterwards answered by Mr. Thomas, Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Bennitt
[No. 21.]
I also request you, as a book-keeper and merchant, to say, whether an en
try on the books of one firm composed of one set of persons, (which entry
on the face of it, when viewed by itself, is admitted lobe wrong in toto, to
wit, wrong in reference to the rights and interests of all the parties affected bv
such entry,) can be made right by entries made in the books of another
firm, composed of a different set of per sons ?
No. G. MILLFR.
I concur in the same opinion. JAMES BENNETT.
I agree with Mr. Miller in his answer. S. BALDWIN.
I agree with the above. Wm. S. THOMAS.
I have been thus particular in my remarks on Mr. Burrill's concessions,
because they involve a point which I consider a vital one ; and so far as his
opinion goes at least, as completely decisive of the whole question in
dispute. [No. 22.]
In the case where one of the partners in a firm has no other interest in it,
than a certain portionof the profitsand losses during the terms of theco part
nership. Can, or cannot the rights, interests, and portion of that person
and partner, ever be correctly ascertained and adjusted, unless the books of
that house are correctly kept, and all the affairs and business of the house,
brought to a final close on their books, and ihe final result of the business
of the concern made to appear by the account of profit andloss ?
The accounts must be kep't correct, and the proportion of the interest
must be ascertained by the profit and loss account. G. MILLER.
I concur in the same opinion. ' JAMES BENNETT.
I agree with Mr. Miller in his answer above. S. BALDWIN.
New -York, 22d FeD. 1833.
I agree with the answers made above. Wm. S. THOMAS.
| No. 23. |
Did, or did not, both you and Mr. Burrill, at first, and have you not both
ever since, claimed that the object and intent of the entry of 15lh Dec. (in
so far as it related to the account of Monson & D. F. & Son, in the books
of the late firm,) was to transfer the balance of that account, from the books
of the late firm, to the books of the new, February, 13th.
Yes Sir, it was. WM. S. T.
[No. 24.] 20th February, 1833.
Mr. Wm. S. Thomas — When you first knew that I saw the entry in the
books of the late firm of D. F. & Son, under date of 15th Dec. last, in which

L8]
the new firm are debited for sundries to amount of $83,489 07, did, or did
not, I pronounce that entry to be incorrect and wrong.
You did pronounce it wrong. WM. S. THOMAS.
[No. 25.]
. Did, or did not, I then disavow said entry, and particularly that part of it
which charged the new firm with interest to amount of $6,585 28, which
that entry itself states was due on the account of Monson & D. F. & Son,
as made up on those books, because the new firm did not owe one penny of
lhat interest ?
You did. WM. S. THOMAS,
[No. 26 ]
Did, or did not, I then also affirm that lhat part of said entry which pur
ports to transfer the. balance due from Monson & De Forest & Son, on old
books, to the books of the new firm, did not close that account on those
books, but that it left said account still open, inasmuch as the interest due
on thai occount had never been charged to the debit of that account on those
books ?
Yet Sir, you did. WM. S. THOMAS.
[No. 27.] New- York, 22d March, 1833.
Mr. Wm. Thomas — As our book-keeper, please say, whether at the time
the remittance account on the books of the late firm of De Forest & Son,
had credit for the $19,800, (being for the same account for which Mr. Mon
son was debited at the same time on said books,) did, or did not. said firm
owe to that account, (or as you otherwise call it,) to Monson & De Forest &
Son, the said sum of $19,800 ?
They did owe it. WM. S. THOMAS.
I No. 28.]
Has, or has not, the remittance account or Monson, De Forest & Son ever
been charged back on the books of the late firm, for the said sum of $19,800.
They have not. WM. S THOMAS.
| No. 29.] .
James Bennett, Esq.
Sir — Having decided that the entry of 15th December on old books is
wrong, I request you now to go back to that original entry, and say first,
whether from that wrong entry in the old books, any corresponding entry
of any sort manner or form whatever, can on the principles of book-keep
ing, of law, and consistent with the rights and interests of parties and ac
counts, ever be made on the new books, that will not be equally wrong with
the original entry on the old books; and whether any corresponding enlry
can be made, which shall, on the above pi inciples, and conformable to the
above rights and interests, be correct, legal and right, on the new books.
Will you be so good as to give me the form and manner in which such en
try must be made ? I am truly yours, &c. L. DE FOREST.
I can make no corresponding entry on the new books retaining all the
items of that on the old books that will be right. JAMES BENNETT.
LNo. 30.] New-York, 8th June, 1833.
Mr. J. Bennett,
Sir — I am a partner and proprietor in the two separate firms of De Forest

LO]
& Son. Our book-keeper, unknown to me, makes entries in the books,
which in the face of them are admitted to be wrong. Am I, or am I not, as
a partner and proprietor as aforesaid, obliged to submit to such wrong en
tries; and are my rights and interests to be concluded by them, or have I
the right to disown and correct those wrong entries, whoever may oppose
me? You are not bound to submit to such erroneous entries, nor are your
rights and interests to be concluded by them; and you have a right as a
partner to alter them, or direct your book-keeper to do so, for the purpose
of making them right unless you have stipulated not to alter. J. BENNETT.
[No. 31.] New-York, 7th June, 1833.
Mr. J. Bennett,
Sir — Please inform me whether or not, in making a reverse entry to correct
a former wrong entry, in which a party or account is made debtor for a
specific article, matter or thing. Must not the reversing entry be so made
as to express a discharge of the party or account from their former liability
and indebtedness, for that specific article, matter or thing, for which they
had been wrong debited ?
It must be so made. J. BENNETT.
[No. 32.] New- York, 7th June, 1833.
J. Bennett, Esq.
SIR— By the proper accounts of M. Monson, old books, you see him
charged, 4th Sept. last, with 4050/., at 10 per cent. $19,800, and in
terest seven months, $693 ; and on the 22d of the same month, this was
found to be a wrong debit to him ; and instead of correcting it by a re
verse entry in the old books, a reverse entry is made of it 22d Sept. in the
new books, and my opponents affirm that this last entry cancels the' wrong
one and is light. Now without asking you the question here, whether it ac
tually does or does not cancel the wrong entry, or whether it is in fact right
or wrong : I do ask you to say, whether or not, on their own ground, if this
entry is a. right and proper one, does it not put an end to both the debit
of the $19,800 to Monson, 4th Sept. on old books, and also to the credit of that
sum to remittance account ; so that neither remittance account or Monson &
De Forest & Son, cannot be debited for the said sums again ; but so also
that this credit to remittance account cannot be used again, either to the
debit or credit of the account of Monson & De Forest & Son ?
I am yours, &c. L. DE FOREST.
I say it does put an end to it, on the supposition cf this entry bmng ab
solutely right. J- BENNETT.
1 No. 33.] New-York, June 7th, 1833.
Jas. Bennett, Esq. ,
SIR— By the proper account of Monson & De Forest & Son, old books,
you see that on the 10th Dec. last, (near three months after an end had been
put to the wrong entry of the 4th Sept. on old books, by the reverse entry
in the new books of the 22d Sept., and which last entry my opponents say
is right,) that a transfer is made in the old books of the balance only, say
$99,742 41 of remittance account, to the proper account of Monson & Lie
Forest & Son, leaving the credit to it of the $19,800 standing Jt'U good
just as though that credit had never been cancelled as they affirm it had.
Now I ask you to say, if as. they affirm, that entry of the 22d Sept did can
cel the wrong entry of the 4th Sept., and thereby take the credit of the $iy,-

110]
800 out of the remittance account, should not the whole amount of the Dr.
side of remittance account have been transferred to the debit of Monson &
De Forest & Son by the above entry of 10th Dec, instead of the balance
only, which is $19,800 short of the whole amount ? And on their own
ground then, is not the above transfer entry of 10th Dec. wrong, to amount
of $19,800, as regards the account of Monson & De Forest & Son ?
I am yours, &c. L. DE FOREST.
On the above assumptions, the whole debit of $119,542 41, instead of the
balance $99,742 41, ought to have been transferred to the debit of Monson,
De Forest & Son. old books, and therefore the transferring of the balance
is wrong. J- BENNETT.
AXIOMS IN BOOK-KEEPING,— By J. Bennett, Esq.
18th May, 1833.
Ist. In settling a partnership ledger after dissolution, it is necessary that c
every error be detected and corrected on it, and this will embrace all the
other books connected with it or subserviant to it, before the general balance
shall have been made. And further, it is necessary and proper that the in
terest on every account on which interest ought to be cast, be made up and
charged to the account to which such interest shall belong, by a regular day
book or journal entry, (original entry I mean,) before the regular and gene
ral balance of such leger can properly and correctly be made; and this will
include the personal accounts of the partners in such concern. J. BENNETT.
2d. The profits and losses on each account on which loss or gain shall
appear, and on every department of the partnership concerns, must be as
certained and carried to the account of profit and loss in such leger, and
must then be divided or apportioned between the partners according to each
ones interest in the concern. When these profits or losses shall have been
carried into the respective partners personal accounts, and the interest cast
on the proper sums on both sides of such accounts, each man's true interest
in the concern will be shown by his personal account. You may then trans
fer all your accounts to the new books, and not until then.
J. BENNETT.
3d. Entries mads in the book of A and B, purporting to amend errors in
the book of A B and C, can never affect such errors, nor make such amend
ment. The books of A B and C must stand or fall on their own merits. If
the books of A and B are destroyed, the interests of A B and C cannot be
ascertained. And this holds good even if A and B are the surviving partners
after the dissolution of the firm of A B and C.
J. BENNETT.
4th. The above axioms must not be considered as mere matters of opin
ion only, for they are as susceptible of proof as any proposition in geome
try. J. BENNETT,

APPENDIX.
ACCOUNTS AND STATEMENTS,
OLD BOOKS.

[12]

M. MONSON— Books, Late Firm.
A

Dr.

1831.
Dec. 13

1832. Jan. 1
10

Feb. 1

To paid Rogers & Jone's bill
shorts - - 2 44
" Subscription to Turf
Magazine 5
" Mrs. Monson's order 300
" 2 policies on skins from
S. Amer. under which
nothing came 2 50

" paid bill, hay and straw
" " Mrs Monson's order 150
" " Allen's bill, oats 6 88
" " 2 loads wood 2 75

23

March 12

April 2

2330

" your 1-3 of bark Ann Eliza & )
outfits <f cargo per act. due
November 1st *
" Inst, on do. to make it 7
" box candles, cartage
" 1 -3 of an old mast had by
Wm. Tell, not charged
in acts, rendered
" Bunker's bill, wine

9 77

1
14

33

" Mrs. Monson's bill
" Sub. to Jour. Com.
" Tax on house, No.
North Moore

13

200 5
15 40

May

" Cash paid you
" Installment, 17 shares
Cleod Mine, a $4
" 17 do. do. do. a $10
" Cash
¦' do.
" Bill, shorts

500 68
170

600 4 57

" Cash
" Instal. on stocks in Cleod Mine.
$1,700, a 23 per ct. 391
•' Sub. to Amherst College 50
" Hat to Mr. Burrill 4 25
" Policy for skins not used 125
" 8 days keeping 2 horses 8

1-3 of property of T. Knower,
note lost, $874 08 due 27 Sept.
1-3 of our act. in bark Ann
Eliza, due 1 July
Carried forward.

7 22

10

6 91

5 20

3 14
11 5

13 38 309 94
96 24 39

6 19
780

80

6 23

18 45
10 75

12 30
8 83

7 89
16 25
1 21

159 63
15,583 75
16 90

25 10

220 40

738
500

604 57
500

454 50
291 36
121 04

883 241 19,549 58

L 13

Interest Account to September 1st, 1833.

Cr.

1831. Dec. 3

21

29

1832. Jan.

17

Feb. 1
20
March 31

April 3

30

By balance per act. due Jan. 1
" add difference of kislerest to
make 7 per ct.
•' Return prem. of insur. made 8
July, on 1400 skins from S. A.
as nothing came 737 50
" Com. affecting returned 245

Amount of Wm. B. Bolles per
hands, I. Treat of act. iuves. in
lands
Dividend on 125 shares, North
River Bank Stock
Prem. returned on $5000 poli
cy, July last as nothing come
under it, due 11 July 75
Com. effecting do. ret'd. 25

" Com. returned for not guaran.
teeing your* 1-3 of sales in ad
venture in Co. due in March
" Your 1-3 of balance, due ad
venture in Co. this day per act,
" Received from D. Lord,, Jr.,
interest received by him on S
Price's bond to you
" Reverse of payment to J.
Trent, charged you in for
mer act., 26th Sept. 200
Interest to this date 6 17
" Interest money of E. L.
Shannon, to 24 March 210

A. Dey, 2 notes in your favor
received from you, viz: 1 note,
10 months, 1 July, due 4 May
1 do. 14. do. 1 do. " 4 Sept,
Nett sale, 4244 hides per Pau
lina, per act.ren'd., due 17 July
Reverse this amount charged
you, 7th Sept. in former act.,
remitted, Baring, Brothers &
Co., the same being on joint
act. 3,313 83
10 1-4 per ct. prem. 329 41

Reverse this amount charged
you as above, 9th August, it
being for joint account, 1510 a
10 1-4 per ct.
Carried Forward.

1 21
8 3
7 25

1 21
5 28
76 12

5 1
3 28
1 15

11 25

12 23

622 32

8 36
8 59
8 58

84
31 54
418 72
3 78

10 47
35 95
7 62

209 63

15,486 89
71 21

982 50
212218 75

100
1,063 37
11,906 57
118

416 17

1,827 50
1,827 50
10,059 12

3,543 24

159 58 2,499

325 991 50,331 81

I 14]
M. MONSON.— Books, Late Firm.

Dr.

1832. Sept. 4

Amount brought forward.
To remitted Baring,Brothers &Co.
Feb. 1, for your act. /4050 a
10 per ct. premium
" Postages
" Interest to balance
" Balance in favor M. Monson
" Transfer with De Forest <f Son
new firm, Sept. 5th, 1832.

7

883 24
693 29 68

19,549 58
19,800 3 48
14,861 02

1,605 92

54,214 08

5

14,861 02

Question. At the time the above charge of $19,800 was made to M. Mon
son. did he, or did he not, owe that sum to De Forest & Son, old firm.
Answer- He did. Wm. S. THOMAS.
Ques. Has, or has not, Monson been charged with the above interest on
the $19,800, say $693, in the credit to him ofthe balance of interest account, in
this account; and did he not owe said, $693 to this firm, when he was so
charged with it.
Ans. He has;been so charged, and did so owe it. Wm. THOMAS.
Ques. Has, or has not, M. Monson ever had credit back again on those
books for the above sum of $19,800, and for above interest of $693
Ans. He has not. Wm. S. Thomas.

I 15]
Interest Aceount to September 1st, 1833.

Cr.

Amount brought forward
By reverse invoice, turpentine,
charged you, 9th July, per
Orient, the same being for
join tact.
" Your 1-3 of amount due ado
venture in Co. June 1, per |
act., No. 2. J.
" Com. returned for not guar- |
anteeing your 1-3 sales in do. J
" sale of 1 bale chinchilla skins,
due 3d September, 1831
I '• Balance of interest

1832.
May 30

Sept. 1

325 99

50,332 81

13 23

8 12

117 65

3

50 81

3,347 90
39 96

12 3

21

347 08
29 68

1,605 92

54,214 08

L 16 1
Dr. Remittances to London, for account M. MONSON, & OURSELVES.

1832.
Jan'y 17.

Rem. to London, for account M. Monson & ourselves.
Dr. to Sundries.
For the following exchange remitted to Tho's Wil
son & Co. to meet M. Monson's drafts from Bue
nos Ayres, to J. N. Gossler, for his exchange on
Tho's Wilson # Co., London, at 60 days sight, fa
vor T. Wilson & Co. Am't 3,050/, or $13,555 56
10 per cent, premium, 1,355 55

To C. W. Faoer, for his exchange on Colman, Lam
bert & Co., London, at 60 days sight, 2,000/. or
$8,888 89
(in our favour,) 9 3-4 per cent, premium, 866 67

Feb. 1.

3.

Feb. 29.

March 16

23

Remittances to London for Monson & us.
Dr. to bills payable.
For Geo. Parish, exchange on Baring, Brothers &
Co. London, at 60 days sight, favor C. N. & C.
Hecksher for 1,000/. remitted Baring, Brothers &
Co., to meet M. Monson's drafts from Buenos
Ayres, $4,444 44
9 3-4 per cent. prem. on above, 433 34
Remittances to London, for account M. Monson &
ourselves. Dr. to Brown, Brothers & Co.
For their exchange at 60 days sight, on W. & J.
Brown & Co., Liverpool, payable in London
remitted to Baring, Brothers & Co. to meet M.
Monson's drafts, 5,000/. at 10 per cent, premium,
Remittances to London, for account M. Monson & us.
Dr. to Branch Bank.
For their 5 drafts 1,000/, each 5,000/. on Baring, Bro
thers & Co., London, sent B. B. & Co. 1st inst. to
meet M. Monson's drafts from South America, at
10 per cent, premium,
Remittances to London, for account M. Monson & us.
Dr. to Inglis, Williams & Co.
For our exchange at 60 days sight, on Wm. Inglis &
Co., London, remitted Baring, Brothers <$¦ Co., to
meet Capt. Monson's drafts, 559Z. 16s. at 9 per cent.
premium,
Remittances to -London, for ac't M. Monson & us.
Dr. to Bills Payable.
For Sands, Spooner & Co., exchange on Sands, Hod-
son & Co., Liverpool, in our favor at 60 days sight,
1,000/. and 1,077 2* 8c/ remitted Baring, Brothers*
Co. to meet Capt. Monson's diafts of 2,077/. 2s 8c/at
10 per cent, premium,
Remittances to London for ac't M. Monson & us.
Dr. to Bills Payable.
For A. Richard's exchange on Andrew Taylor &
Co., Liverpool, at 60 days sight, 722/. 14s. 9d. re
mitted Baring, Brothers & Co. to meet M. Mon
son's drafts from South America, $3,212 18
at 10 per cent., premium 321 20

14,911 11

9,755 56

4,877 78

24,444 44

24,444 44

2,711 92

10,154 87

3,533 38

Carried Forward.

94,833 50

[17]
Remittances to London, for account M. MONSON & OURSELVES.

1H32.
April 30.

May 1.

May 8.

30

Amount brought forward.
Remittances to London, ac't M. Monson & ourselves.
Er. to M. Monson.
For this amount remitted Baring, Brothers & Co.,
London, ac't M. Monson, 7th Sept., now transfer
red to joint ac't by his order, as Baring, Brothers
& Co. advise us they have done in their letter of
14th March, 1832, 723/. 2s. 3d or 3,213 83
at 10 1-4 per cent. exch. 329 41
Remittances to London, for ac't of M. Monson &
ourselves. Dr. to Geo. Wildes & Co.
For our exchange at 60 days sight, 2,000/. drawn on
Geo. Wildes & Co., London, as an advance on 10
bales nutria skins, shipped them pr bark Africaine.
drawn in favor and remitted Baring, Brothers & Co.
to meet Capt. Monson's drafts from the Rio de la
Plata, 2,000/. or
Remittances to London, ac't M. Monson <£¦ ourselves.
Dr. to Bills Payable.
For Geo. Parish, Jr. on Tho's Wilson <f Co., London,
favor C. A. & C. Heckscher at 60 days sight, in
2 bills, 500/. and 1,500/. is 2,000/., at 10 per cent,
Remittances to London, ac't M. Monson & us.
Dr. to M. Monson.
For this amount remitted Baring, Brothers & Co. 9th
Aug., now placed to joint ac't, 5101. at 10 1-4
per cent.

1832.
Sept. 4

Dec. 10

94,833 50

CREDIT.
M. Monson Dr. to remittances ac't M. Monson
& ourselves.
For M. Monson's proportion of 10,000/. say 4,050/
remitted Baring, Brothers & Co., for his private
ac't 1st Feb. last, and charged to joint ac't by Mr.
Gould instead of to M. Monson, now reversed,
4050/. at 10 per cent.,
M. Monson & De Forest & Son,
Dr. to remittances to London ac't
M. Monson & ourselves.
For balance this account transfered,

3,543 24

8,888 89

9,777 78

2,499

119,542 41

19,800

99,742 41
119,542 41

L AO I
OLD BOOKS. c

Entry 15lh December.

De Forest & Son, New Firm

15th December, 1832,
Dr. To Sundries.

To M. Monson # De Forest & Son.
Balance due from the account, 31st inst. placed
to their debit on new books 75,083 03
To Charges. Postages due from above account collected 12 29
To Interest. Amount due these books on' above account
made up this day 6,585 28
To Commissions. For sundry commissions returned, these
books on sales belonging to above ac
count, as per entry on books of new
firm, this date Journal Folio 130 203 36
1,605 11
 1,808 47

-83,489 07

NEW BOOKS.

Entry 15th December.

M. Monson & De Forest £ Son

15th December, 1832.
Dr. To Sundries.

To Late De Forest & Son.
Balance due them 31st inst., transferred from
late books 75,083 03
Postage due do. 12 29
Commission 2 1-2 per cent, on sale Nutrias in
London by G. Wildes <f Co. due do. 228 36
Less commission returned on a remittance
for account, M. Monson included in
this concern 25
 203 36
To Interest. Balance due us on act. made up this day 4,697 25
Deduct amount already entered
Folio 71 «*33

-75,298 68

Less

760 32
159 58

600 71

4,096 51
S'<ftSt5 19

I IP]
NEW BOOKS.

Entry 15th December.

15th December, 1832.
Sundries Dr. To Late De P'otest &, Son.
Interest. Amount due late firm, on the joint acccount of
M. Monson, themselves made up this day to 31st inst. 6,085 28
Commission. For their half commissions on the following
sales, made up on these books for account, M. Mon
son and themselves. Returned them
pur Bark, Paoli $438 28 1-2 is 219 14
" Paulina 52 88 1-2 is 26 44
" Clarice 09 32 " " 34 66
" Laurel 171 50 " " 85 75
" Ohio 32 11 " " 16 05
" John Laird 340 06 " " 170 03
" Ann Eliza 1,047 54 " " 523 77
1,075 84
Half commission due them on proportion of sales
above made on late books, and closed on these
per Ann Eliza prop, sold
by them $28,572 68 357 15
" John Laird do. 13,182 95 164 80
" Paulina do. 806 40 100 80
" Paoli do. 1,656 58 20 70

$643 45
Deduct half commissions due us on sale
Nutrias in London, charged oppposite
$228 36 1-2 is H4 18
529 27
Add the amount above 1,075 '84

Due 31st December

-1,605 11
 8,190 39

We agree that the within entries are true copies from the books of entries
referred to in our letter of this dato L. BE FORES ft
New- York, Tllh March, 1833. Wm. W. DE FOREST.

20]

Dr. M. MONSON & DE FOREST & SON, in act. current with De Forest
This accout transferred 15th December.

1831. July t
Aug, 8
1832. Jan. S
14

Fo invoice turpentine per Orient
" do. press, per Susan Mary
" M. Monson's draft, favor, J.
Frazier, from Buenos Ayres,
due 12th March
'' Do. order to Jno. Moore for 10
pat. doubloons a 15 65 156 50
4 Spanish do. 16 25 65

: remitted Thomas Wilson& Co.
London, 3,050/, a 10 per
cent. 14,911 11
2000/ a 9 3-4 9,755 50

Feb. 1

March 16

23

24,666 67
1 per cent, purcha
sing and remitting 246 67

May ]

" remitted Baring,Brolhers &Co
3d January, 1000/ a 9 3-4 per
cent. 4,877 78
1 per cent, purcha
sing and remitting 48 78
" remitted Baring,Brothers if Co.
London, 10,000/ 0s 0d a 10
percent. 48,888 88
1 per cent, purchasing
and remitting 488 88
" remitted Baring, Brothers &Co,
London, 2,077/ 2s 8d a 10 per
cent. 10,154 87
1 percent, purchasing
and remitting 101 55
" remitted Baring,Brolhers &Co.
London, 722/ 14s 9c/ a 10 per
cent. 3,533 38
add 1 per cent. com. 35 33
" remitted Bariiig,Brothers &Co.
7th Sept. 1831, 723/ 2s 3d at
10 1-4 per cent. 3,543 24
1 per cent, purchasing
and remitting 35 43
" remitted Baring,Brothers &Co.
London, 2000/ or 8,888 89
1 per cent. com. 88 89

17 22
16 2
9 19

11 17

11 28

11

9 15

9 8

15 24

No premium charged on above
remittance, as the bill was
Carried Forward.

12 20
28 85
175 70

14 98

11 17 1,680 92

342 95

3,168 47

568 35

192 92

329 85

418 97

6,934 16

117 65
294 85
3,127 13

221 50

24,913 34

4,920 56

49,377 76

10,256 42

3,568 71

3,578 67

8,977 78

109,360 37

L 21

& Son, late firm. Interest a 7 per cent, to 31st December, 1832. Cr.
D
The transferred account, 15lh December.

1832. Feb. 1

April 10

20
May 10

12

Nov. 27

By nett sale, hides per Dawn, due
9th January
" do. salted hides, per Paulina,
due 20lh August
" do. hides per Dawn, 2 due 9lh
August
" do. Nutrias per Orient, due 1st
September
" loss collected on 19 bales calf
skins, coming from Baltimore,
received at thence per Baptisi
Me lick 2,000
deduct insurance from
Buenos Ayres 43 52
Freight and pri
mage from do. 158 02
Insurance from
Baltimore 11 25
duty on hair a-
round skins 13 35
drayage 4 14 ")
wharfage 57 c. ! fi „.
advertising 1- f
50 c. J
com. charged by
agent 4 43
do., ours 2 1-2 )
per ct. collect- > 50 00
ing loss )  —286 78

" cash collected for loss on 400
salted hides coming from Balti
more, received at thence per
sloop Peter 1,315 87
deduct com. collect. ~i q9 on
same 2 1-2 per cent. $ °* oa

' nett sale sundries per St. Pe
ter, due 12th September

n Carried forward.

11 22
4 11

4 22

7 21

7 19
3 19

343 92
33 15
54
162 89

78 94

57 12|
248 36

5,024 73
1,301 93
1,956 27
6,981 43

1,713 22

1,282 98
11,719 12

976 38 29,979 68

22]

Dr. M. MONSON & DEFOREST* SON, in act. current with De Forest
The transferred account, 15th December.

18J2.

May 31

S

31

Dec. 15

Amount brought forward.
drawn on Geo. Wildes & Co
London, against a shipment
Nutrias for account of this con
cern.
To bill, charges on Nutrias, per
brig Sophia 301 50
"do. do. on 2 bales, Nu
trias, per Susan Mary 62 24
" remitted Baring,Brothers &Co.
London, 2000/ a 10 per
cent. 9,777 78
1 per cent, purchasing
and remilting 97 78

'• remitted Baring,Brothers&Co.
23th Feb. 559/ 16s a 9
premiumper cent. 2,711 92
1 per cent. com. 27 12

15

" transfer with M. Monson, 30th
May, 510/ a 10 1-4 per cent.
" postages
" balance of interest

" balance brought down, due 31st
December, 1832 ,

7 23

10

1 0936037

363 74

9,875 56

2,739 04
2,499 00
12 29
6,585 28

131,435 28
81,655 60

| 23]

# Son, late firm. Interest a 7 per cent, to 31st December, 1833. Cr.
 The transferred account, 15th December.

1832. Dec. 15

Amount brought forward
By transfer with M. Monson,
September 22d, 4,050/ at 10 per
cent.
" interest to balance
" balance due De Forest & Son

29,979 68
19,800 00
81,655 60

S.24 ]

M. MONSON & DE FOREST & SON— Proper account. Dr.
E

1832.

April 3

May 10

15

30

31

For nett proceeds of 4244 dry
hides, per Paulina, as per ac
count rendered this day, $10,059
12, erroneously included in the
sales for account cf the former,
folio 79, but which being for that
of the latter, we now reverse —
Total amount as entered Febru
ary 1, $11,361 05
Deduct nett sales of 424
hides (salted) on joint
account as made up
this day, 1,301 93

2 1-2 percent, commission collec
ting loss of calfskins from Bal
timore per schr. Eclipse of At
lantic Co. $2000
" 2 1-2 per cent, commission col
lecting loss of 400 salted hides
from American Insurance Co.
per schr. Eclipse from Balti
more, $1,315 0'
For invoice of turpentine shipped
to Buenos Ayres per brig Orient
9th July, now placed to joint ac
count,
For invoice press, sent to do. per
schr. Susan Mary, Aug. 8th, pla
ced to joint acc't,
For charges on 10 bales nutrias
received from Buenos Ayres per
brig Sophia and shipped to Lon
don per British bark Africaine,
account M. Monson and us per
account, $301 50
For charges on 2 Dales
nutria skins received per
Susan Mary from Buenos
Ayres and shipped to
London per bark Afri
caine per account, 62 24

For charges on 19 bales calf skins
received per brig Baptist Me-
zeck from Buenos Ayres at Bal
timore, and lost coming from
thence — insurance from Buenos
Ayres $21 74 at 1 1-2 pr ct. 32 65
1-2 per cent, making insu. 10 87
insurance from Baltimore»ll 25
following expenses in do.
freight and primage f'm
B. Ayres 158 02
Carried Forward.

4 11

7 21

7 IS

17 22

16 23

256 24
2 26
1 48
12 20
28 85

10,059 12
50
32 89
117 65
294 85

19 23

363 74

320 261 10,918 25

[25

(LATE FIRM.)

Proper Account.
E

Cr

1832.Feb. 1

April 10
20

May 10

12

Nov. 27

Dec. 15

By nett proceeds, hides per brig
Dawn due 9th Jan. last,
By do of 4244 dry and 424 salted
hides, due 20th Aug. last,
"Nett sale 618 hides per dawn, due
9th August,
" For nett sale of 9 bales nutria
skins received per brig Orient
due Sept. 1st,
" Cash received from Atlantic In
surance for loss of 19 bales calf
skins per schr. Eclipse from
Baltimore, received from Buenos
Ayres per brig Baptist Mezick
at Baltimore, and lost in coming
from thence to this port,
"Cash received from American
Insurance Co. for loss of 400
salted hides from Baltimore to
New- York, per schr. Eclipse
(received at Baltimore per St
Peter,)
"For nett sale, sundries per ship
St. Peter, per account due 12th
September last,
" Balance due from this account
31st inst., placed to their debit
on new books,

It will be noticed by this last
entry, that Monson, De Forest &
Son are debited in the New Books
for $75,083 03 as the balance of
this account; whereas the inter
est due upon it, $725 42, should
first have been carried to the ered
it of it, and the true balance
would only have been $74,357 61
L. D.

Carried forward.

11 2
4 11
4 22

7 21
7 19
3 19

343 92
289 39
54
162 89

89 83
58 60
248 36

5,024 73
11,361 05
1,956 27
6,981 43

2,000
1,315 87
11,719 12
75,083 03

1,246 991 115,441 50

I *o I
M. MONSON & DE FOREST & SON— Proper account. Er.

1832.

Sept. 4

Jan. 14

Dec. 10

Amount brought forward.
duties on hair around
skins, and entry 13 35
drayage 4 14, wharfage
00 57, advertising 1 50 6 21
commission 2 1-2 p. cent 4 43

For the following drafts on us
from South America by M. Mon
son on joint account Jan. 9th,
favor J. Fraser, dated Buenos
Ayres, Oct. 30th, at 60 days
sight,
'¦' Order to Jno. Moore for 10 pat.
doubloons a 15,65 $156 50
4 Soan. do. a 16,25 65

For balance of remittances to
London, account M. Monson &
ourselves, transferred, 99,742 41
foi 1 per cent, com
mission on sundry
remittances to London
to -meet M. Monson's
drafts $119,542 41 at
1 percent. 1,195 43

New- York, 22d March, 1833
I certify the above to be a true
copy, made out by order of Mr.
L. De Forest — and that it is made
in strict conformity in all respects,
to the written instructions I re
ceived from him on the 19th inst,
and that it contains all the items,
and no more, and no less, which
appear on the proper account of
Monson & De Forest & Son, on
the books of the late firm of De
Forest & Son.
W. S. THOMAS

Balance of Interest not entered

7 21

11 17

10,918 25

236 78

3,127 13

221 50

100,937 84

115,441 50

725,42

[27]
(LATE FIRM.)- Pioper Account.

Cr.

1832.

Amount brought forward.

1,246 991 115,441 50

1,246 99

115,441 50

F
Transfer Entry of Account of M. Monson, 5lh Sept., Old Books.
M. Monson Dr. to De Forest & Son, new Firm.
Balance due former, September 1st, transferred to his credit on books of
latter, $14,861 02

Corresponding Transfer Entry; 5th Sept., New Books.
Late firm, De Forest & Son Dr. to M. Monson.
Balance due from former to latter, September 1st, transferred from their
books, $14,861 02

I certify the above to be true copies from the Books they appertain to.
WM. S. THOMAS.

| 28]
g'
The form of an entry which must be made to correct the wrong entry in
books of the new firm of 22d September, and of a corresponding entry,
which must be made in the old books to make both books right.
M. Monson, Dr. to Monson and De Forest and Son. New Books.
For a wrong entry on these books, 22d September, made to'1
corrrect a wrong entry for same things, 4th September in I a.orMqq nri
old books, now reversed, because wrongfully placed on these f,w-il',4yd °0
books. j
Sundries, Dr. to M. Monson. Old Books,
Remittance account for 4,050/ a 101-4 per cent, charged him 4th
September, being part of 10,000/, remitted Barings 11th Feb
ruary, now found to be erroneous, as the funds were used for
account of Monson and De Forest and Son. $19,800
Interest account for 7 months interest charged > „„„
Monson on above sum. 4th September. \ bJS
 $20,493 00

MEMORANDUM shewing the manner in which ihe items and interest on
the debit sideof tbeaccount transferred,were transposed from thedebitside
of the proper account of Monson & De Forest & Son, old books, to that
account, and how greatly the two accounts differ in description of items
and amounts.
-a H

May 30

The following debils'in their proper act. are deducted from credits in it,and
the diff. only placed on the cr. side ofthe act. which was transferred, viz :
April 3, 1832. This $10,059 12 is deducted from a cr. of $11,361 05, and
difference $1,301 93 placed to cr. of the act. transferred.
May 10. This $50 together with the several items in part of ins entry of 31*
May, which make the sum of $236 78 are deducted from a ,r. of $2,000,
and difference $1,713 21 placed to cr. of account transferred. :
May 15. This $32 89 is deducted from a cr. of $1,315 87, and difference
$1,282 98 placed to cr. of act. transferred.
While all the other debits in their proper act. are correctly placed- on the
debit side of the act. transferred, viz:
This $117 65 is to debit of act.
transferred under date of July 9,
1831, (please notice the different
dates,) 17 22 12 20 117 65
This $294 85 is to debit of act.
transferred, under date of 8th
Aug. 1831, (notice again,) 16 23' 28 85 294 85
31 This $363 74 is to debit of act.
transferred 31st May, 7 19 23 363 74
Sept. 4 This $3,127 13 is to debit of act.
transferred under date of 9th
Jan., 1831, (note again,) 9 19 175 70 3,127 13
This $221 50 is to debit of act.
transferred act. under date of
14th Jan., 1832, (note again,) 1117 14 98 22150

17 22

12 20

16 23

28 85

7

19 23

9 19

175 70

11 17

14 98

250 96

4,124 87

L 20 !
MEMORANDUM, shewing the manner in which the items and interest on
Cr. side of the account transferred, were transferred from the credit side
of the proper account of Monson * De Forest & Son, old books, to that
act., and how the two accountsdiffer in description of items and amount.

1832. Feb. 1

April 10
21
Mav 10

12

Nov. 27

Diff. between Cr.,11,361 05 ) pro
And debit,3April. 10,059 12 ^ act

Diff.betweenCr. of 2,000
And debit same
date 50
other debit 31
May 236 78 I
 286 78 J

1
i I pro
f act

Diff.between Cr. 1,315 87 ;
And debits 15 May 32 89 ;

prop act.

11 22

7 21

7 19
3 19

343 92 5,024 73

33 15
54
102 89

76 94

57 11
248 36

1,301 93
1,956 27
6,981 43

1,713 22

1,282 98
11,719 12

976 38 29,979 68

AWA80 OF

K

REFEREES-

GENTLEMEN : We the referees named in your letters, dated March 1st, and
27th 1833, having considered the' question submitted to us, and the en
tries, a copy of which was furnished with the last letter; and having hea^d
the statements and explanations offered by you, do express our judgment
and opinion as follows, to the question in the letter of 1st March. 1833.
"Whether the books of De Forest & Son, late firm, (which firm was compos
ed of these persons,) and whether the books of De Forest & Son, present
firm, (which firm is composed of two persons) are right or wrong, in refer
ence to the rights and interests of any one or more of the parlies referred
to in the several entries, as they now appear on the face of them, accord
ing to the fundamental principles of book-keeping, and the laws of this
state, as applicable to the several entries in those books."
We answer and decide ; first, in respect to the entries referred io in the
letter of the 27th March. That, although they are not as natural, simple
and appropriate to the purpose, for which they are employed, as others that
might have been made ; yet they do not involve any violation of the funda
mental principles of bookkeeping, or law of the state as applicable to such
entries, nor incompatibility with the rights and interests of the parties con
cerned in them ; but are consistent with, and right, in respect to all those
interests, and accordant with all those rights. Secondly lhat, that is the
fact also with " all the other entries in the books made on the same princi
ples," as i those entries are ; and finally therefore, taking these entries
obove named, as the ground of our judgment, that the said books are com
patible with the rights, and right with respect to the interests of each, and
all of the parties, "as they now appear on the face of them," and consistent
with the fundamental principles of book-keeping and laws of the state, e :
applicable to such entries. We are, gentlemen, with respect, yours,
To L. De Forest & W. W.De Forest, Esqrs. DAVID N. LORD,
New- York, April 2, 1832. W. B. BOLLES.
E

I 30]
Dr. Mr. M. MONSON account on Books De Forest & Son.

18J2. June 5
19

27

29
July 36
25
Aug, 7

11

15

Sept. 5

To cash
" insurance on 1250 fur seal
skins from Monteviedo on
$6,250, a 1 1-4 per cent, and
policy 79 37
1-2 per ct. effecting do. 3125

" Cash paid your order, favor
Juan B. de Olazana 500
" Subscription to 40 share s
Leather Manufacturer's
Bank 40

" Anthony Dey's note given up
to you, due 4th September
"Cash"Do.
" Subscription for the poor
" Expense of wagon in Bal
timore 47 82
•' Cash sent you at North
Hampton 500
" Hardy, wages per order 7

" Amount due from you, to Th.
Wilson & Co., London, paid
by our agents 29th June, 11/
10s, or 51 11
10 per ct. premium 5 11

" Paid second donation for the
poor 50
" Hardy's wages 7

" Postages
" Balance of interest
'• Balance dueM. Monson, Sept.l

2 2:

3 22

2 5

1 29
1 26
1 7

25

21

17

4 37

2 08

5 85

4 92
3 73 31

2 31

20

16

21 85

300

110 62

540
J ,827 50
500400 50

554 82

56 22

57
6 17
21 85
10,436 84

14,861 02

New-York, 22d March, 1833.
I certify the foregoing account, to be a true and correct one of M. Monson,
on the books of De Ferest & Son, new firm, and thatj the items of debit
and credit in it, correspond exactly with the items of debit and credit, as
they stand on their Journal, and, that this account contains all the items on
both sides of the account on the books, and no more and no less.
Wm. S. THOMAS.

[31

New Firm, and interest account a 6 per cent, to 1st Sept. 1832. Cr.

1832. Sept.

By Transfer with De Forest &
Son, late firm, due Sept. 1st.
" Interest to balance account
" Discount in red

5 By balance due September 1st
22 " reverse this entry, 4th inst.
the same having been used for
joint account 19,800
interest on do. to
Sept. 1st 693

" transfer with Baring, Brothers
& Co. from private account,
1253/ 8s a 10 1-4 per cent.
premium 6,141 66
proportion, interest and
postages for joint ac
count, taken from your
private act. of Baring,
Brothers * Co. viz: in
terest 336 42
postage 9 72

346 14
Interest on above due
June 30th, to Sept. 1
2 months, 2 days, at
6 per cent.

373 83

67 32

6,582 81
Deduct this amount cred
ited you 30th May, the
same being erroneos,
510/ a 10 1-4 per cent.
due 9 Aug. '31 2,499
interest on do.
do. to Sept. 1 159 58
—  2,658 58

14,801 02
2 08

14,861 02

10,436 84

20,493

3,924 23
34,854 07

32 ]

Dr. M. Monson, in account current with De Forest & Son, (embracing his
account in books of both firms,)
M

1831
Dec. 13

1832. Jan. 3
10

To paid Rogers & Jones bill
shorts, $2 44
" paid sub. to Turf Mag. 5
" Mrs. Monson's order, 300
" 2 policies on skins from
South America, under
which nothing came, 2 50

Feb. 1

23

" Bill, hay and straw,
" Mrs. Monson's order $150
" Allen, bill oats 6 88
" 2 loads wood 2 75

March 12

April 2

: Yrour 1-3 of bark Ann Eliza,
and outfits and cargo, per act.
due Nov. 1st,
; Interest in do. to make it 7 per
cent,
" Box candles and cartage 9 77
'¦ 1-3 of an old mast had by
brig Wm. Tell, not char
ged in act. rendered 1 33
Bunker bill wine 14

" Mrs. Monson's order 200
" Subscription to Journal
of Commerce 5
" Tax on house 13 North
Moore-street 15 40

23
30

May

" Cash paid you 500
Installment on 17 shares
Cleod mine a 4 68
do 17 do a 10 170

" Cash,
"Do.
" Bill shorts

600 4 57

1 Cash,
1 Installment on stock in Cleod
mine $1700 a 23 pr ct. 391
: Subscription to Amherst
College 50
Hat to Mr. Burrill by or
der 4 25
" Policy on skins not used 1 25
' 8 days keeping 2 horses 8
1 1-3 proportion T. Know-
er note lost $874 08 due
27th Sept., Carried forward.

8 19
7 29

7 22
10

6 9

5 20

4 2
3 16

3 14
1 5

13 3896

6 19

780

80

6 231

18 45
10 75

12 30
8 83

7 89

16 25

309 94
24 39

159 63

15,583 75
16 90

25 10

220 40

738
500

604 57
500

454 50

291 36

882 03|

19,428 54

[33]
and interest account at 6 per cem. to September 1st, 1832.
M

Cr.

1S31. Dec. 3
21

29

1832. Jan. 7
17

Feb. 1

20

March 31

By balance per account due Jan. 1
" add difference to make 7 pr. ct.
¦' Return prem. of insurance made
8th July on 14000 skins from
South America as nothing
came 737 50
Commission effecting do.
returned 245
" Amount of Wm. B. Bolles per
hands J. Treat account invest
ment in lands,
($465 also credited 24lh Oct. in
former account on this same act "
By dividend on 125 shares North
River Bank stock,
" Prem. returned on $5000 policy
July last, as nothing came under
it due 11th July 75
Commission effecting do.
returned 25

April 3

" Your 1-3 of balance due adven
hire in Co. this day, per act.
" Commission returned for not
guaranteeing your 1-3 of sales in
adventure in Co. due 4th March
" Received from D. Lord, Jr. in
terest received by him on J.
Price bond to you,
" Reverse payment to J. Treat,
charged you in former account
26th Sept. 200
Interest to this date 6 17
"Interest money of E. L.
Shannon to 24th March 210
" A. Dey 2 notes in your favor
received from you 10 months lsl
July, due 4th May,
14 mo. 1st July due 4th Sept.
" Nett sale 4244 dry hides per
Paulina, per account rendered,
due 17th July,
" Reverse this amount charged
you 7th Sept. in former account
remitted Baring, Brothers & Co.
the same being on joint account
723/. 2s. 3d. or 3,213 83
10 1-4 per cent, premium 329 41

Amount carried forward.

1 21
8 3
7 25
1 21
7 5 28
6 12

5 1
3 28
1 15

11 25

622 32

8 36
8 59
8 5885
418 72
31 54
3 78

10 47
35 95
7 54

1,364 33

15,486 89
71 21

982 50
212
218 75
100
11,906 56
1,063 37
118
416 17
1,827 50
1,827 50
10,059 12

209 63 3,543 24

47,832 81

[34]
Dr. M. Monson, in account current with De Forest & Son, (embracing his
account in books of both firms,)

1832.
May IS
Sept. 4

June 5
19

27

A mount brought forward.
To 1-3 of our account vs. own
ers bark Ann Eliza due 1st July
' Remitted Baring, Brothers &
Co. London, Feb. 1st, for your
account, 4,050/. a 10 per cent.
premium,
To cash paid you,
': Insurance on 1250 fur seal skins
from Montevedio in Y or V. $6,
250 at 1 1-4 per cent, and poli
cy, 79 37
1-2 per cent, effecting do. 31 25

' Cash paid your order, favor of
Juan B. de Olazana 500
' Subscription to 40 shs.
in Leather Manufact'ring
Bank 40

29
July 3
6"
25
Aug. 7

15

Sept. A

Anthony Dey's note given up
to you, due 4th Sept.,
Cash paid you,
do. do.,
Subscription for the poor,
" Expenses of wagon in Balti
more 47 82
" Cash sent you at North
Hampton per mail 500
" Hardy, wages per order 7

11 " Amount due from you to Tho
Wilson & Co., London, paid by
our agent 29th June, 11/. 10s
or 51 11
10 per cent, premium 5 11
" Paid 2d donation for poor 50
" Hardy, wages 7
" Postages,
" Int. to balance,
" Balance due M. Monson,

72 27

3 22

2 5

1 29
1 26
1 7

25
2117

882 03
1 21

693 4 371

2 08

5 85

4 92
3 73
31

2 31
20 16
5 75

1.603 84

19,428 54
121 04

19,800 300

110 62

540
1,827 50
500
400 50

554 82

56 22
57 9 65
10,436 84
54,192 23

[35 1
and interest account at 6 per cent, to September 1st, 1832. Cr

1832.
April 3

May 21

Sept. 4

Amount brouglU forward.
By reverse this amount charged
you 9th Aug. it being for joint
account, 510/. at 10 per cent.,
" Reverse invoice turpentine ch'd
you 9th July, per Orient, the
same being for joint account,
" Your 1-3 of amount due adven
ture in Co. June 1st per account
No. 2,
" Guarantee commission returned
on sales do.,
" Sale 1 b'rl chinchilla skins due
Sept. 3, 1831,
•' Balance of interest,
¦' Discount in red.

1,304 32

47,832 til

12 23

159 58

2,499

13 23

8 12

117 65

3

50 81

3,347 90
39 96

12 S

21

347 08
5 75
2 08

1,603 84

54,192 23

Mr. Wm. S. Thomas — As our book-keeper, please answer the following :
Ques. 1. Did you or did you not, make up this blended account, embracing
Monson's private account in the books of both firms, at or about the lime the
balance of his account, old books, was transferred by you to the books of
new firm? Ans.— I did. WM. S. T.
Ques. 2. Does or does not, this blended account contain all the items of
debit and credit, word for word, and figure for figure, as they appear on the'
face of his accounts in both books, up to the time the above transfer was
made? Ans.— It does. WM. S. T.
Ques. 3. To what account, and in which set of Dooks are the above two
items of balance of interest $5 75 and discount in red $2 08 carried from
this account and entered ?
Ans. — The proportion of each concern is carried to the interest account in

each book.

Sept. 4
22

due

By balance brought down
Sept. 1,
" Reverse this entry 4th inst. the
same having been used for joint
account 19,800
Interest on do. to Sept. 1 693

" Transfer with Baring, Brothers
& Co. fiom private act. 1,253/.
8s. at 10 1-4 per cent 6,141 66
' Proportion, int. & post
ages for joint act. taken
from yourpriv. act. of B.
Brothers & Co. viz.
Interest 336 42
Postages 9 72-346 14
<z8prct. 373 83
fnt. on above due June
30th to Sept. 1st,

6,515 49
67 32

Dc't this am't cred't you 6,582 81
30 May same being erro.
510/ a 10 1-4 p ct due Aug
d, 1831 2,499
IntondoSeptl 159 58—2,658 58

WM. S. THOMAS. 10,436
20,493

3,924 23

24,417 23

Due Sept. 1st

34,854 07

36 ]

Dr. MARCENA MONSON, Esq. New-York, in account

1S31.

/. S. (/.

Jan. 10

ToZimmerman, Frazier&Co.

draft 29 October, 60 days,
14 Mar.
708 10 6
Feb. 16
To do. draft, 20 Nov. 60 d'ys
21 April
412 10
23
To do. " " "
27
229 9 2
March 11
To do. " 14 Dec. "
14 May
201 5
12
To de. " 22 Nov. "
39 6 11
22
To do. " 2 " "
24
67 11
June 13
To do. " 9 Mar. "
15 Aug.
510
Dec. 26
To do. " 4 Oct. "
5 "
9 March
8
27 Feb.
9 March
8
312 10
190
200500
282 13 3
200 125
31
To commission at 1 per cent.
on 3933/ 2s 3d
To postages
To balance at credit of new
account
39 6 7
2 6
189 18
4210 6 5
To dependencies at debit oi
,
new account
723/ 2s 2d Zimmerman,
Frazier & Co.
draft 27 April a
60 days.
572 15 1 do. draft 4th Oct.
a 6o days.
2412 12 5 do. draft 5th Oct.
a 60 days
3708 9 8
1
L37]

•Current with Baring, Brothers & Co.
N

Cr.

1830.

/. s. d
Dec. 31
By balance of former account
227
1831.
Jan. 21
" one bill on Lucas & Co.
29 March
1000
31
" " " Sands & Co.
6 April
500
Feb. 17
" " " G. Wildes & Co,
21
1200
Aug. 30
" " " received by De For
est if- Son
1 Nov.
510
Oct 3
" part of 2 bills received by
De Forest & Son.
5 Dec.
723 2 3
Dec. 31
" interest as per accounts
/
X
50 4 2
/^
4210 6 5
1
Errors excepted, London, 31st December, 1831, Baring, Brothers & Co.
[38]

Dr.

MARCENA MONSON, Esq. in account
O

1832.
Feb. 22

June 30

To dependencies from former
Zimmerman, Frazier & Co
act. drafs, 27 April, 60 days
4th October

104/ 13s 9d
14 8 10
70 0

9d)
8

3 bills

213Z4S4cZ)2bi]]
100 0 0 ^bllls

To do. do. 17 Nov.
1 remittances credited in for
mer account transferred 5
December, 1831.
'¦ com. a 1 on 5773/ 2s 2d p. c.
: interest per account
postages
balance due this day, trans
ferred to the credit of the
joint account, De Forest &
Son f M. Monson.

11 May
10 March
1210

1712
10

1214
12 9
10
28 April

/. s. d. t.

3708 204

723 2 3

73 11 1

1253 8
5963

[39

Current with Baring, Brothers & Co.
O

Cr.

1831.
Dec. 31
1832.
Jan. 23
Feb. 22
March 9

By balance of former accouni
:< 1 bill rec. by De Forest&Son
1 part of 1 bill on Brown
'¦' 1 bill on ourselves

26 March
23 April
11 May

189 18
1000
4050 723 2 2

5963

[40 |
Dr. M. MONSON & DE FOREST & SON. (Proper Act.)

1832.
Sept. 22

Nov. 27

28

To amount charged to latter, (M.
Monson,) in books, late firm, Jour
nal B, folio 221 which we uow
reverse, the same being for joint
account, and was correct as it
previously stood, due February
1st. 19,800
Interest on do., to Sept.
1st, time the account
was made up 693
Also, for amount of interest and
postages for joint account, inclu
ded by mistake in Baring, Bro
thers & Co., private account, vs.
M. Monson. Interest 336 42
Postages 9 72

346 14

At 8 per cent. 373 83
Also, for this amount
transferred from credit,
latter to former, by
Baring, Brothers &
Co., London, by order,

M. Monson, 1253/ 8s,
at 10 1-4 per cent,
due 30th June
Interest on do. to Sept.
1st, 2 months, 2 days,
6 per cent.

6,141 66

6,515 49

67 22

Deduct, for this a-
mount credited latter,
(M. Monson,) in books
late film, 30th May,
now reversed, the said
entry being erroneous,
510/ a 10 1-4 per cent.
due 9 Aug. '312,499
Interest on do.
to Sept. 1st 159 58

6,582 81

2,658 58

Freight and primage on 15 bales
nutrias from Buenos Ayres, per
Brig Sophia, at Philadelphia,
paid by latter, 7th July last
" Balance due on 12 bales nutrias,
Carried forward.

10 24

20,493

678 52

6 80

685 32

3,924 23

24,417 23

107 72

24,524 95

41 ]

ON BOOKS, NEW FIRM. P

(Proper Act.)

Cr.

1832 June £

Aug, 4

Sept. 14

By for 10 bales nutrias skins re
ceived per Brig Sophia, from
Buenos Ayres, and shipped a:
above containing 13,200 skins val
tied at 60 cents 7,920
¦i For 2 bales do. received
per Susan Mary,shipped
as above, 2,304 skins at
60 cents 1,382 40

per

Nov. 27

28

Dec. 15

' For nett sale, 400 Ox hides.
Brig Ohio, cash, 5th June
: Received from them, (Baring.
Brothers & Co.) their account
vs. this concern, balance due 4th
August, as per account, dated
London, 3d June, placed to our
private account 84/ 18s or 377 33
8 per cent, exchange on
above, taken to private ac
count at value in the mar
ket 30 19
" Nett sale, hides, per Bark, Paoli
per account, due 28th June last
" Nett sale, 783 hides, per Clarice,
per account, due 8th June last
" Nett sale, sundries, per Brig
Laurel, per account due 24tb
August last
" Nett sale, nutrias, per Paulina
per account, due 29th Aug. last
" Nett sale, hides, per Jno. Laird,
per account, due 20th Sept. last
: Nett sale, sundries, per Ann
Eliza, per account, rendered, due
3d July
" Balance, interest (not entered)
1,888 03
" Balance due De Forest fy Son
31st December

Carried forward.

5 26

6 26

27

6 26

4 7

11

5 28

314 05
43 0<>

1,203 09

9,302 40
1,076 22

11 66

407 52

525 60

14,691 23

55 38

2,131 64

133 22

5,395 26

47 06

1,951 76

216 02

11,000 34

2,579 17

34,760 50

23,370 93

104,087 80

42]

Dr.

M. MONSON & DE FOREST & SON,

Dec. lg

Amount brought forward.
shipped lo London, in
voice 9,302 40
Nett sales as entered
2056/ 6s 3d or 9,134 74

Balance due them, (late De For
est & Son,) 31st insl., transferred
from late books 75,083 03
Postage due do. 12 29
" Commission! 2 1-2 per
cent, on sale, nutrias in
London, by George
Wildes & Co. due do.
228 36
Less commis
sion returned
on a remittance
for act. M. Mon
son, included in
this concern 25
 • 203 36
Balance, interest due us on act.
made up this day 4,697 25
Deduct, amount already
entered 693
Folio 71 .67 32

Less

790 32
159 58

" Interest to balance

600 74

24,424 95

167 66

¥, , ., . ., New-York, 21st March, 1833.
I hereby certify the within, to be a true and correct account of the whole
of the items on the debit and credit sides of Monson & De Forest & Son's
account, on the new books, word for word, and figure for figure, and in their
correct order and date, as they appear on the face of those books, and to
contain nothing more nor less, and to agree also with the debit and credit
sides of the leger account. Wm. S. THOMAS.
New- York, 23d' March, 1833.
Question. In making the above charge of balance of interest on the
blended account of $4697 25, to Monson & De Forest & Son on this act.,
did you, or did you not intend that it should, and consider that it did adjust
and settle the balance of interest, $6,585 28, which appeared to be due from
them on their account, and interest account with the old firm ; and which
account you drew off, and stated at the lime you made the above charge to

L43 |
ON BOOKS, NEW FIRM.

Amount brought forward.

2,579 17 104,087 SO

2,579 17

104,087 80

Monson & De Forest & Son; and also to adjust and settle the balance of
interest, $1,888 03, which appeared to be due to Monson & De Forest &
Son, on their account and interest account with the new firm of De Forest &
Son, which you also drew off, and stated at the time you made the above
charge of $4,697 25 1
Ans. I did so intend, and so consider it. Wm. S. THOMAS.
Ques. Is or is not, the balance of interest on this account, say $1,888 03,
due ahd owing to Monson & De Forest & Son, as stated on the face of the
account? Ans. It is. Wm. S.THOMAS.
Ques. Has or has not, the balance of interest, $1,888 03, due to Monson
& De Forest & Son, as stated in this account, ever been credited to this ac
count on the books of the new firm ? Ans. It has not. Wm. S. THOMAS.

I 44]
BLENDED ACCOUNT OF MONSON & DE FOREST & SON.
Dr. Adventure to Buenos Ayres in Co. with M. Monson, and

1831.
July 9
Aug. 8
1832Jmi9

14

To invoice turpentine per Orient.
To do press per Susan Mary
To M. Monson's draft, favor J
Fraser, from BuenOs Ayres, 60
days, due 12lh March,
To do. order to Jno. Moore for
10 pat. doubloons al5 65 154 50
4 Span. do. al6 25 65

' Remitted Tho's Wilson & Co.
London, 3,050/. a 10 Dei-
cent. 14,911" 11
2,000/. a 9 3-4 per ct. 9,755 56

Feb. 1

March 16

24,666 67
1 pr cent.purchasing 1 246 67
and remitting $ 
•' Remitted Baring, Brothers &
Co. 3d Jan. 1000/. a 9 3-4 per
cent. 4,877 78
1 per cent, purch. ) 48 78
and remitting

17 2\
16 2:

9 IS

11 17

23

' Remitted Baring, Brothers &
Co. London, 10,000/. a 10 per
cent. 48,888 88
1 per cent, purchasing
and remitting 488 88
" Remitted Baring, Brothers cf Co.
London, 2,077/. 2s. 8d. a 10 per
cent. 10,154 87
1 per cent, purchasing
and remitting 101 55

May 1

" Remitted Baring, Brothers &
Co. 722/. 14s. 9d. a 10 per
cent. 3,533 38
add 1 per cent. com. 35 33

" Remitted Baring, Brothers &
Co. 723/. 2s. 3d. a 10 1-4 per
cent. 3,543 24
1 per ct. purch. & rem. 35 43
" Rem. Baring, Brothers & Co
London, 2,000/. or 8,888 89
1 per cent, commission 88 89

No premium charged on above
remittance as it was drawn a-
gainst a shipment nutrias on G
Wildes & Co. for same concern.
Carried forward.

11 17

11 28

11

9 15

9 8

15 24

12 20
28 85

175 70

1,680 92

342 95

3,168 47

568 35

192 92

329 85

418 97

117 65
294 85

3,127 13.

14 98 221 5q

24,913 34
4,926 56
49,377 76
10,256 42
3,568 71
3,578 67
8,977 78

6,934 16| 109,360 37

[45]
BLENDED ACCOUNT OF MONSON & DE FOREST & SON.
Interest account at 7 per cent, to 31st December, 1832. Cr.
 Q, ___ 

1832.
Sept.

April 10
20
May 10

By nett sale hides per Dawn, due
9lh January,
By do salted hides per Paulina
due 20th August,
By do hides per Dawn due
9th August,
By do nutrias per Paulina say 1st
September,
By loss collected on 19 bales calf
skins coming from Baltimore,
received at thence per Baptist
Mezick $2,000
Deduct insurance from B.
Ayres 43 52
" Freight&prem 158 02
" Insu. f'm Bait. 11 25
"Duty on hair
around skins 13 35
" Drayage 4 14,
wharf'g 00 57,
advertis. 1 50
" Commiss. ch'd
by agent
Do ours 2 1-2 p
cent. coll. loss

6 21
4 43

50

 286 78
12 By cash collected for loss on 400
salted hides coming from Balti
more, received at thence per St
Peter 1,315 87
Deduct, commission coll.
same, 2 1-2 per cent 32 89
Nov. 27 By nett sale sundries per St. Peter
due 12th September,
" Do. hides per Ohio, due June 5,
" Balance Baring, Brothers &Co.
account due this concern 4th
Aug. 84/. 18s. a 8 per cent.,
" Sale hides per Pauli. due27 June
"¦ do do Clarice do 5 do
Do sundries per Laurel 24Aug.
" Do nutrias per Paulina 27 do
28 " Do hides per Jno. Laird 20 Sept.
Dec. 11 " Do sundries per Ann Eliza 3d
July,

Carried forward.

11 22
4 11
4 22
4

7 21

7 19
3 19
6 26

4 27
6 4
6 26
4 7
4 4
3 11
5 28

343 92
33 15
54
162 89

76 94

57 12
248 36
43 0£

11 66
525 61
85 3f
133 22
47 06
216 02
1,203 0!

5,024 73
1,301 93
1,956 27
6,981 43

1,713 22

1,282 98
11,719 12
1,076 22

407 52
14,691 23
2,131 64
5,395 26
1,951 76
11,000 34
34,760 50

3,241 50| 101,394 15

L*D J
Dr. Adventure to Buenos Ayres in Co. with M. Monson, and

1S32. MayS

31

A mount brought forward.
To remitted Baring, Brothers &
Co. London, 2,000/. a 10 per
cent. 9,777 78
1 per ct pur. & remit'ng 97 78

Dec. 15 4

¦' Bill chg's on nutrias, per So
Dhia 301 50
¦''Freight do f'm B. Ayres 107 72
" Bill chg's on nutrias per
Susan Mary 62 24

" Transfer with M. Monson 1,253/
8s. a 10 1-4 per cent. 6,141 66
" Interest and postages
due B., Bro. & Co. Lon
don, 346/. 14s. a 8pr ct. 373 83
¦' Remitted Baring, Brothers &
Co. 29th Feb. 559/. 16s. a 9 per
cent, premium. 2,711 92
1 per cent, commission 27 12

' Postages,
" Balance of interest.

To balance due 31 December

7 23

18 1

10 2

6,934 16

447 43

19 23

685 33

160 84

8,246 99

109,360 37

9,875 56

471 46

6,515 49

2,739 04
12 29
4,697 25
133,671 46
23,370 93

I 47]
Interest account at 7 per cent, to 31st December, 1832. Cr.

1832.
Dec. 11

Amount brought forward.
By sale 10 bales nutrias in Lon
don by Gi o. Wildes cy Co. ree'd
per Sophia 1,779/. 5s. Ad.
Do 2 ,lo received per
Susan an 1 Mary 276/. 0s. lit/

15

2,055/. 6.v 3,/

Less

or
com.

1-2 i

ct

9,131 22H

\v interest to balance account,
¦ Balance due De Forest it Son,

Ques. Does this amount asheie
stated, and as rendered to M. Mon
son, purport to balance and close
the account of M. & D. F. # Son
on old books, and to adjust and
settle the balance $23,370 93 sta
ted to be due on it, in the account
of M. & D. F. & Son on the new
books ?
Ans. lt does. WM. S. T.
Ques. At what time did you make
up this blended account, and did
you ever make up such an account
before with Monson & De Foiest
& Son.
.4ns. On the 15th December, and
never before. WM. S. T.

3,241 50 101,394 15

5 28

308
4,697 25

8,906 38
23,370 93

8,246 99

133,671 46

[48]

Dr.

Messrs. DE FOREST *

SON & M. MONSON

1832

/. s.

d

/. s. d.

Jan. 6

ToM. Monson's draft, 18 0«

60dy'£
9 March
12
1000
2400
3400
23
" do. " 7 Nov. "
26
1000
22
" do. " 15 " "
27 April
220 12
£
17 " "
11 June
14
14 May
27 April
300 75
225500
1320 12 5
23
" do. " 26 " "
26
599 2 6
24
" lo. " " c(
27
1266 ] 8
25
" do'. " " "
28
96 7 1
27
" do. " " "
30
1000
March 9
" do. « 13 Dec. "
14 May
600
April 2
" do. " 21 " "
4 Jun e
1054 17 10
9 "
11
3690 16
10
1 do. " 4 Feb. "
23
9 July
153 9
10
3844 6 8
May 4
500
" Commission a 1 per cent.
u
318 11
1C
818 11 10
June 30
on 15,000/
150
15000 0 0
' Interest per account
49 5
2
' Postages
2
6
201 5 8
' Balai ce which we place al
the credit of Messrs. De For
est f Son
t Aug
.
84 18
5286 3 8
[49 |

in account current with BARING, BROTHERS & CO. Cr.
R

1832
Feb. 21
22

March 23
April 9
23
May 30
June 2
30

By 5 bills remitted ,by De
Forest & Son
" Part of 1 bill on Brown
" Remittance transferred at
the account of M. Monson
" 1 bill remitted by De Foresi
&Son
"2 do. do. do
" 1 do. de. do
" 1 do. do. do
" 2 do. do. do
" Balance of the account of
M. Monson

24 April
23 5 Dec.
25 May
7 June
23 1 Aug
4

1831

/. s d-

5000 950

723 2

3

559 16
2077 2
722 14
2000
2000

8
9

1253 8

15286 3 8

Errors excepted, London, June 30th, 1832, Baring, Brothers & Co.

L50]
Dr. BARING, BROTHERS & CO., in Account
<  =  _® 
1832. ~"
Sept. 4." To receive from them their account, vs. Monson & De Forest &
Son, balance due 4th August, as per account, dated London, 30lh
June, placed to our private account, 84/ 18s, or $387 33
1833.
May 27. To following, taken from their account, dated Lon
don, 1st December ; difference between amount of Cap
tain Ricketson's draft from Marseilles, and our remit
tance to meet the same with our remittance for
this account, charged Folio 39. 3,350/ Os Od
Captain Ricketson's draf from Marseilles 2,3 00 0 0

50 0 0

is $222 22
Deduct, Banker's Commission in London, on
said draft, 2,300/, at 1 per cent., is 102 22
Interest between lime, said draft, and
our remittance to meet same, fell due,
60 days, at 5 per cent, is 85 19
Postages in London 8 30
¦  $195 71

26 51

$403 84
Balance due Baring, Brothers & Co. 411 78
815 62

I 51]
with DE FOREST & SON, New Firm. Cr.

1832.
Oct. 19. By draft drawn by B. Ricketson on latter from Marseilles, as per
their letter 10 London, 14th August, 20/ 14s $92
1833.
May 27. By De Forest & Son, late firm, balance, latter ac
count transferred from books of former, due 31st De
cember last $707
Brig Paulina and per owners, for Banker's
commission 1 percent, on Captain Ricketson's
draft on latter from Marseilles, 20/ 1 is, or as
per their account 92
Proportion of interest due from us, to latter,
on their account, dated London, December 10. 15 70

723 62

$815 62
By balance brought down $411 78

INDEX.
ACCOUNTS IN OLD BOOKS.
K. M. Monson's Proper Account, 
B. Remittance Account, 
C. Transfer entries of 15th December in both books, .
D. The Transferred Account of Monson, De Forest & Son,
E. Monson, De Forest # Son's Proper Account, .
F. Transfer Entries of Account, of M. Monson, .
IN NEW BOOKS.

PACE. 12
1618
202427

3. Forms of Entries to be made, to correct the wrong entries of
22d September,  28'
8. Transpositions from debit side of the Proper Account of Mon
son, De Forest & Son, lo account transferred, . . 28
[. Do. from Credit side of do. to do.,  29
5. Award of Referees,  29
L M. Monson's Proper Account,  30"
VI. Blended Account of M. Monson,  32
!f. Baring, Brothers & Co., Account against M. Monson, . . 36
0. Do. do. & Co., 2d Account with do., ... 38
P. Monson, De Forest & Son's Proper Account, ... 40
Q. Blended Account of do., under head of " Adventure to Bue
nos Ayres, &c,"  44
R. Baring, Brothers & Co., Account against Monson, De Forest
& Son,  48
i. Baring, Brothers & Co., Account against De Forest & Son, 50

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03523 9053