Article Text
Co the following checks drawn on Sather & Church, viz:Mark Brummagin & Co.; Hedges & Hannon: McWilliams & Tymeson; Evarts, Wilson & Co.; W. H. Ladd & Co.; Wright Simpkins The checks of Reynolds & Brown will be paid at the bank ing house of Freiz & Ralston. A placard, signed by Greenhood & Newhaur, gave notice that all drafts drawn by their firm, at Weaverville, payable at the banking house of Sather & Church, would be paid at sight at their house, No. 72 California street. The number and nature of the attachments out will be to found under the proper head. We have been unable discover the number of creditors on whom the firm have shut down. Messrs. Sather & Church make the following statement to of their affairs, which would probably lull suspicion as their solvency, were it not for the unfortunate precedents who set them in this city, particularly by Adams Co., showed large assets over and above their liabilities, bu failed eternally nevertheless. ASSETS. Bills receivable, in the hands of J. B. Roberts, $342,000 Samuel Merritt and T. H. Selbey Checks on other banks, in the hands of Roberts, 22,000 Merritt and Selbey 50,000 Due for advances to Gold Duet Correspondents 50,000 Real estate in San Francisco Total $464,000 DEBTS. $133.00 Due Depositors on book account 109,00 Due on certificates of deposit Assets over amount due the depositors and the 222,000 certificates of deposits Total $464,000 All special deposits are in the vault, and will be delivered as soon as possible. Mint certificates for collection, and notes left for collection, are not included in the above statement. The protested drafts of Sather & Church were being paid in New York when the steamer left The shipments made by each steamer will be applied in payment of the drafts drawn at the date of the ship ments. Of the bills receivable, the bulk of them will be due in thirty days. They are good, and mostly secured by collaterals. SATHER & CHURCH. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 5.] The receipt of the accounts of the financial distresses in the East, caused considerable excitement in this city yesterday, which was augmented by the information that drafts forwarded to New York on the 5th September, by Sather & Church, had been protested. * * Early in the day quite a run was made upon the banks of Wells, Fargo & Co., Tallant & Wilde, Fretz & Ralston, B. Davidson, and Parrott & Co., but as all demands were promptly paid, the excitement soon ceased; and by twelve o'clock the miniature panic was soon at an end. During the day attachments were sued out against the well known shipping and commission house of Moore & Folger, hide dealers, to the amount of $35,000. It is thought, however, that the house will soon be able to re sume, their present difficulties being only temporary, and occasioned by the failure of Willetts Co., of New York. The house of Moore & Folger bears a high reputation for honesty and good business, and it is hoped that they may come out of their troubles without serious injury. The Treasury Compromise. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 3.] The Attorney General informs the Union that he was present when the first proposition was submitted by Palmer, and advised the compromise if it could secure the State from ultimate loss by Bates & Co. Some misapprehension existing about the position of the $15,000 mentioned by the Union, in its previous issue, that paper gives the following further figures:In April, 1856, Treasurer Bates paid to Palmer, Cook & Co. $88,000, to meet the interest due on State bonds in the succeeding July. They failed to pay it, but after the Treasuaer contracted with Wells, Fargo & Co. to pay the same interest, Palmer, Cook & Co. gave Bates a draft on New York for $15,000, which was handed to Wells, Fargo Co., and by them collected. This sum Bates failed to charge himself with when paid back by Palmer, Cook & Co. the Legislative committee very properly ordered it to be charged against Bates, and it makes a portion of the $48,000 for which he is a defaulter. This $15,000 Palmer declined to pay in the compremise, as he had once paid it, and as it is not included in the compromise, still stands as a portion of the Bates' defalcation. We are told that the State is to receive $235,000 in real estate to cover the following debts, viz: that due by Palmer, Cook & Co., $88,000, less the $15,000 paid back to Bates: the $124,000 due by Pacific Express Company, and the $48,000 due by Bates, makingPalmer, Cook & Co $78,000 124,000 Pacific Express Company Bates deficit 48,000 Total $250,000 In these cases the Union does not think the State would ever, by suit upon the bonds of Bates, Palmer Cook & Co. receive $50,000. From the properly she may realize $200,000. The indictment against Bates is in the hands of the court; it cannot be disposed of by notte prosequi, except with its consent. (From the San Francisco Herald, Nov. 5.] Governor Johnson, Treasurer English, Attorney General Wallace, and District Attorney Hereford, says the Sacramento Bee of the 19th instant, have been engaged during a great portion of the two weeks just passed in cooking up a settlement on behalf of the State with the above named parties. On Saturday last, in San Francisco, the matter was completed. The judgment against Palmer, Cook & Co. for the nonpayment of the July, 1856, interest in New York amounts to some $75,000, and that against Rates for the money given Rowe to pay the interest of this year in New York, which he failed to do, is for $124,000. As security for the payment of both these sums to the State, the State officers are to receive from Palmer, Cook & Co. real estate now valued at $235,000. but which it is thought will realize nearly if not quite the full amount of $200,000 in cash." A board of appraisers, however, are yet be appointed to place a cash value on the property, and it is to be taken at their appraisement. As part of the settle ment, District Attorney Hereford, who is acting in this matter. by the authority of the Court, is to enter a nolle prosequi in the criminal case against Bates, and Rowe is to be set liberty in consequence thereof This nolle prosequi cannot prevent any future grand jury indicting Bates on the criminal charge, if they shall see to do so. Although a prosecuting officer may at any time refuse to proceed against a prisoner, and cause him to be discharged, he is not therefore exempted from the crime in the eye of the law.