Article Text
THE PEOPLE'S BANK. ReArguments scind on the the Receivership. application Application of to Joseph on the the order of the of court Home Winterburn Arguments appointing to set J. aside E. Farnum Bank receiver were the Judge from had been heard People's before Sanderson Savings postponed yesterday. concerned last week time having The case to allow the attorneys to prepare their been therein of the Yesterday when recently every one came up Farnum, only briefs, some further appointed. attorneys interested the rethe matter including E. Shaw and was present, attorneys. A. and other while by were and P. M. to stockholders C.N. ceiver, Fox, L. and his Hoeffler the represented petitioner Hart F. represent Dunne. M. A. with Dorn. Attorney- General State of California. of in by the case commenced allegations the directors and the terburn's the Dorn people opened application. the various He support endeavored of Win- made very reciting the bank indorsed the bank against that Farnum to have got the which are it was claimed the into cific acts to show trouble. alleged indebted directors to that of People's the one Pa- so Bank that was the the other. If the Bank. and interested in to protect bank were be in a position and stockholders in banks. point Bank was interests both they The should main of depositors claimed Home by Dorn but was was in a that the People's in difficulties at under all, skillful honest reality not canable of settling all its benefit said solvent and liabilities institution. and management leaving of depositors handsome counsel, and surplus stock- they "on for he holders. representations "And yet," bank' to affairs the court in expenses a mancertain to wind up the by law, with all ironical no was and ask ner not a 'counsel very provided modest fee to my _with friend an Judge Fox.' bow- went on to say that the there stockholders Dorn whatever appointment that of a of re- a acquiesced allegation in is this there any proceeding. mention The a ceiver; against nor such thing a took place repre- at fact protest was the only whole five stockholders. infinitesimal meeting of them but an of the bank. seating the capital appointed men banking proportion These among of surreptitiously really solvent insti- the a receiver for a Dorn, "as to tution. again," said He cannot conduct business for the by law duties the "Then, of a receiver. is compelled benefit whatever of parties loss to wind may interested. He concern up, So at the whole to the Proceedings. of 8 receiver be incidental costs the appointment The whole proceedshould be a were various authorities. to explain all quoted ings French avoided. unauthorized, bank case, notably and counsel well- the to known on this subject. therefore, to the the order first Objectione. were manifold. the In court had place show it cause was maintained to appoint that a receiver. been un- If jurisdiction company had remedy no officer of the trust there was a facts of known to all. sufficient, even case were had receiver. the appointment in the that an faithful the well the court to bis net jurisdiction, Secondly, of a the to complaint, granting necessi- the No any if such insolvency tate malfrasance was alleged on the part were of the to be directors. did not allow because of case, others nor the law And. of confiscated even parties. the property Hart the of wrongdoing Altorney-General offer. At this point few suggestions Dorn gave that he had a go away early what as he had to and way to him. by Attorney of the was been urged the nature Hart and said define Hart indorsed Dorn, that bank. then had had of proceeded the to same argument the Pacific Bank, savused It in that the it case was incorporated had special as a bank, and by had leges ings namely, governed therefore directors special while privi- laws. a and corporations was the the concern, the lien In such on stockholders all the assets manage of and control the business. the bank had franchise a franchise was granted in the Now. the State, which Therefore, in the case of nature by of a contract. on the part of any be officer taken the company and the misconduct proceedings must had no according in the present be as these court of jurisdiction steps to law, instance. can the court taken," "Be- can said Hart, "that there must be a appoint a the concern. or fore such receiver is, before the State disso- must the franchise be informed and the to withdraw lution Attorney-General has of occurred, must granted. Bank persons Commis- The the in- of missioners what are the proper In this way numermatters." quoting authorities in insisting support that the ous vestigate Attorney-General and concluded by argued. revoked. of his argument. E. order Shaw a receiver Attorney be A. He was appointing After the recited recess the original appointed complaint of the the director. against there had allegations replied. receiver under which show Mr. bank, that Farnum and pointed well been as endeav- out gross care- the oring to on their part. as of affairs. The misconduct in the management acceptance On of glaring $99,000 of C. F. of June 22, the bank the lessness most the night note for of vaults all was their 1893, of the Holder. defendants and certain acout of the of $97.000, The note bonds took of the value this note for $99,000. in cepted in lieu was taken of these at the Pacific Bank