1.
October 10, 1905
Daily Kennebec Journal
Augusta, ME
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
STOCK IS WORTHLESS. Another Fraudulent Scheme of the Schiffers of Colorado. Denver, Colo., Oct. 3.-According to information from Alamosa, Col., the Schiffer Brothers, owners of the suspended Bank of Alamosa, one of whom is under arrest and the other being sought under warrant, obtained a large sum of money through the sale of stock of a cattle camp company they organized which stock is declared to be fradulent. The company was organized with 100.000 shares. 11,000 of which were sold to William Adams and Frank Adams, brothers of Former Gov. Alva Adams. The balance was purchased by the Dunn estate of Del Norte. The allegation is made that subsequently the Schiffers duplicated the Dunn estate stock and sold it to J. A. Thatcher, president of the First National Bank of Pueblo. Frank Adams now asserts that this latter stock is worthless.
2.
November 11, 1905
Deseret Evening News
Salt Lake City, UT
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
Schiffer is Arraigned. Almosa, Colo., Nov. 10.-Abraham Schiffer, one of the owners of the bank of Alamosa, which suspended business recently, and who was arrested in New York City, was arraigned here today. He waived preliminary examination and was held in bonds of $70,000, being $10,000 each for seven counts of receiving deposits knowing his bank was insolvent. Schiffer expects eastern friends to supply the bond and in the meantime will remain in the custody of the sheriff.
3.
November 11, 1905
Los Angeles Herald
Los Angeles, CA
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
Colorado Banker Arraigned By Associated Press. ALAMOSA, Colo., Nov. 10.-Abraham Schiffer, one of the owners of the Bank of Alamosa, which suspended business recently and who was arrested in New York city, was arraigned here today. He waived preliminary examination and was held in bonds of $70,000, being $10,000 each for seven counts of receiving deposits knowing his bank to be insolvent. Schiffer expects eastern friends to supply the bond and in the meantime will remain in the custody of the sheriff.
4.
November 17, 1905
Wood County Reporter
Wisconsin Rapids, WI
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
SCHIFFER UNDER HEAVY BONDS. Owner of Defunct Colorado Bank Waives Examination. ALAMOSA. Cal., Nov. 11.-Abraham Schiffel. one of the owners of the Bank of Alamosa, which suspended business recently, and who was arrested in New York, waived preliminary examination and was held in bonds of $70,000, $10,000 each for seven counts of receiving deposits while knowing his bank to be insolvent. TERRE HAUTE, Ind., Nov. 11.The second 40 per cent dividend, approximating $300,000, will be paid with. in A few days to the depositors of the defunct Vigo County National bank.
5.
March 20, 1906
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake City, UT
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
Receiver for Colorado Bank DENVER March 19.-United States Judge Moses Hallett today removed A. H. Brickensteln as assignee of the Bank of Alamosa, Colorado, which recently falled with estimated liabilities of $200,000. and appointed Christopher Wallrich receiver of the bank.
6.
March 24, 1906
The Monte Vista Journal
Monte Vista, CO
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
pairing by Marshall will receive strict attention. MCINTOSH & DUNCAN The Del Norte Prospector has secured over one hundred signatures to H petition for free rural delivery and the papers have been sent to Congressman Hogg for his approval And co-operation. Representative Stevenson of Minnesota, has introduced R bill in congress for the reclamation of swamp lands of which there Are about 100,000,000 acres in the United States, 70,000,000 of which have been surveyed. These lands when properly drained would make splendid rich farma and homes for the millions of landless. After fighting poverty ever since the death of her husband six years ago, Mrs. H. A. W. Tabor Is about to come into her own Through the sale of almost forgotten claims in the San Juan district, negotia. tions for which are on at the present time, Mrs. Tabor, it 18 believed will realize a princely sum, possibly $1,000,000.-Chieftain. The national convention of the United Mine Workers of America is now in session at Indianapolis, with over 1,000 delegates present representing 1,461 locals. The convention was called by President John Mitchell to decide whether or not 11 general strike that will bring 425,000 men from the mines shall be called for April 1. The conference with the operators will begin here Monday next. Another step in wiping out the the Brickenstein family by the citizens of Alamoea was taken in the federal court Monday when Judge Hallett removed from all connection with the defunct Bank of Alamoea, which recently failed with liabilities estimated all the way from *100,000 to over $200. 000, A. H. Brickenstein as nseig gnee and appointed NO receiver Christopher Walirich, who has been a lumber dealer in Alamosa for eighteen years.-Denver Times, Our San Luis Valley sheep men are attracting attention in Chicago. The Chicago market has what purports to be " half tone of Ru. dolph Ahrens under which it says: Here we have 11 good likeness of one of Rio Grande County, Colo., hustling sheep feeders, Mr. Ahrens, the jumor member of the firm of Robb & Ahrens, of Monte Vista. Colo. Mr. Ahrens has been in Chiengo the past week overseeing the sale of 11 train of Colorado fed lambs that he is marketing through the National Live Stock Commis. sion Co. Mr. Ahrens expressed himself as well pleased with prices and prompt manner in which the "National" handled his shipments, end said that while this WAN the first season the "National" had handled any shipments for him it would not be the last. Ntomach Trouble and Constipution.
7.
April 5, 1906
Albuquerque Evening Citizen
Albuquerque, NM
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
DEPOSITORS IN. ALAMOSA BANK CAN'T RECOVER. Pueblo, Colo., April 5.-Judge Riner, of the United States district court, today handed down his decision in the Schiffer bankruptcy case, in which he decided that the evidence was insufficient to show that Herman Schiffer of New York, was a director of the Alamosa bank. This releases Schiffer from a liability of about $200,000, which, as director, he had been sued for by depositors. The proceedings grew out of the failure of the Bank of Alamosa, which was owned by Isaac and Abraham Schiffer. The case today was to determine whether Herman Schiffer, said to be a wealty man, was actually a member of the banking firm. Th failure was most sensational, and created much bitterness against the Schiffers. Out of deposits aggregating more than $200,000, less than $2,500 was found by the receiver.
8.
April 5, 1906
The Roswell Daily Record
Roswell, NM
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
Schiffer Goes Free. Pueblo, Colo., April 5.-Judge Riner of the U. S. District court, today hand ed down a decision in the Schiffer Bankruptcy case in which he decided the evidence insufficient to show Herman Schiffer of New York was a director of the Alamosa Bank. This reof leases Schiffer from a liability about $200,000, which as director he had been sued for by the depositors. The proceedings grew out of failure of the bank of Alamosa, which was owned by Isaac and Abraham Schiffer The case today was to determine whether Herman Schiffer, said to be wealthy, was actually a member of the banking firm. Its failure was most sensational and created much bitterness against the Schiffers. Out of deposits of more than $200,000 less than $2,500 was found by the receiver.
9.
April 11, 1906
The Lamar Register
Lamar, CO
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
SCHIFFER DECISION. Wealthy New York Brother Not Held Liable. Pueblo, Colo.-According to a decision handed down Thursday by Judge Riner in the United States Court, Herman Schiffer was not a member of the firm of H. Schiffer & Bro., owning the defunct Bank of Alamosa at the time the institution closed its doors. Judge Riner in effect held that the connection of Herman Schiffer with the firm of H. Schiffer & Brother, had not been proven. The court held that the burden of proof of an existing partnership must rest with the petitioners and that so far as the evidence was concerned, this had been of a negative character. The fact that the firm name of H. Schiffer & Brother had been continued after Herman Schiffer had disposed of his interests to Abraham and Isaac Schiffer, could not be regarded as evidence of partnership from the fact that authorities had held that the firm name of a concern was a portion of its assets and that through the purchase of the business and good will of the firm of H. Schiffer & Brother, the purchasers had succeeded to the firm name also. Herman Schiffer was consequently released and discharged from all responsibility in the matter. while Abraham and Isaac W. Schiffer were adadjudged bankrupt according to the prayer of the petition of the creditors. This decision releases Herman Schiffer from liability of about $200,000, which as a director of the Alamosa bank he had been sued for by deposi10TE. The proceedings grew out of the failure of the Bank of Alamosa which was owned by the Schiffers, Isaac and Abraham. The case in court was to determine whether Herman Schiffer of New York, who is said to be a wealthy manufacturer, was actually a member of the banking firm. The failure was most sensational and created much bitterness against the Schiffers. Abraham. the active head of the bank, was brought to Pueblo from Alamosa in order to insure protection and to await a hearing in the federal court. The failure occurred in October, 1905. Out of deposits of more than $200,000 in the bank, at the time, less than $2,500 was found by the receiver.
10.
April 12, 1906
Gilpin Observer
Central City, CO
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
SCHIFFER DECISION. Wealthy New York Brother Not Held Liable. Pueblo, Colo.-According to a decision handed down Thursday by Judge Riner in the United States Court, Herman Schiffer was not a member of the firm of H. Schiffer & Bro., owning the defunct Bank of Alamosa at the time the institution closed its doors. Judge Riner in effect held that the connection of Herman Schiffer with the firm of H. Schiffer & Brother, had not been proven. The court held that the burden of proof of an existing partnership must rest with the petitioners and that so far as the evidence was concerned, this had been of a negative character. The fact that the firm name of H. Schiffer & Brother had been continued after Herman Schiffer had disposed of his interests to Abraham and Isaac Schiffer, could not be regarded as evidence of partnership from the fact that authorities had held that the firm name of a concern was a portion of its assets and that through the purchase of the business and good will of the firm of H. Schiffer & Brother, the purchasers had succeeded to the firm name also. Herman Schiffer was consequently released and discharged from all responsibility in the matter, while Abraham and Isaac W. Schiffer were adadjudged bankrupt according to the prayer of the petition of the creditors. This decision releases Herman Schiffer from liability of about $200,000, which as a director of the Alamosa bank he had been sued for by depositors. The proceedings grew out of the failure of the Bank of Alamosa which was owned by the Schiffers, Isaac and Abraham. The case in court was to determine whether Herman Schiffer of New York, who is said to be a wealthy manufacturer, was actually a member of the banking firm. The failure was most sensational and created much bitterness against the Schiffers. Abraham, the active head of the bank, was brought to Pueblo from Alamosa in order to insure protection and to await a hearing in the federal court. The failure occurred in October, 1905. Out of deposits of more than $200,000 in the bank, at the time, less than $2,500 was found by the receiver.
11.
April 12, 1906
The Elbert County Tribune
Elbert, CO
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
SCHIFFER DECISION. Wealthy New York Brother Not Held Liable. Pueblo, Colo.-According to a decision handed down Thursday by Judge Riner in the United States Court, Herman Schiffer was not a member of the firm of H. Schiffer & Bro., owning the defunct Bank of Alamosa at the time the institution closed its doors. Judge Riner in effect held that the connection of Herman Schiffer with the firm of H. Schiffer & Brother, had not been proven. The court held that the burden of proof of an existing partnership must rest with the petitioners and that so far as the evidence was concerned, this had been of a negative character. The fact that the firm name of H. Schiffer & Brother had been continued after Herman Schiffer had disposed of his interests to Abraham and Isaac Schiffer, could not be regarded as evidence of partnership from the fact that authorities had held that the firm name of a concern was a portion of its assets and that through the purchase of the business and good will of the firm of H. Schiffer & Brother, the purchasers had succeeded to the firm name also. Herman Schiffer was consequently released and discharged from all responsibility in the matter, while Abraham and Isaac W. Schiffer were adadjudged bankrupt according to the prayer of the petition of the creditors. This decision releases Herman Schiffer from liability of about $200,000, which as a director of the Alamosa bank he had been sued for by depositors. The proceedings grew out of the failure of the Bank of Alamosa which was owned by the Schiffers, Isaac and Abraham. The case in court was to determine whether Herman Schiffer of New York, who is said to be a wealthy manufacturer, was actually a member of the banking firm. The failure was most sensational and created much bitterness against the Schiffers. Abraham, the active head of the bank, was brought to Pueblo from Alamosa in order to insure protection and to await a hearing in the federal court. The failure occurred in October, 1905. Out of deposits of more than $200,000 in the bank, at the time, less than $2,500 was found by the receiver.
12.
April 13, 1906
The Dolores Star
Dolores, CO
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
SCHIFFER DECISION. Wealthy New York Brother Not Held Liable. Pueblo, Colo.-According to a decision handed down Thursday by Judge Riner in the United States Court, Herman Schiffer was not a member of the firm of H. Schiffer & Bro., owning the defunct Bank of Alamosa at the time the institution closed its doors. Judge Riner in effect held that the connection of Herman Schiffer with the firm of H. Schiffer & Brother, had not been proven. The court held that the burden of proof of an existing partnership must rest with the petitioners and that so far as the evidence was concerned, this had been of a negative character. The fact that the firm name of H. Schiffer & Brother had been continued after Herman Schiffer had disposed of his interests to Abraham and Isaac Schiffer, could not be regarded as evidence of partnership from the fact that authorities had held that the firm name of a concern was a portion of its assets and that through the purchase of the business and good will of the firm of H. Schiffer & Brother, the purchasers had succeeded to the firm name also. Herman Schiffer was consequently released and discharged from all responsibility in the matter, while Abraham and Isaac W. Schiffer were adadjudged bankrupt according to the prayer of the petition of the creditors. This decision releases Herman Schiffer. from liability of about $200,000, which as a director of the Alamosa bank he had been sued for by depositors. The proceedings grew out of the failure of the Bank of Alamosa which was owned by the Schiffers, Isaac and Abraham. The case in court was to determine whether Herman Schiffer of New York, who is said to be a wealthy manufacturer, was actually a member of the banking firm. The failure was most sensational and created much bitterness against the Schiffers. Abraham, the active head of the bank, was brought to Pueblo from Alamosa in order to insure protection and to await a hearing in the federal court. The failure occurred in October, 1905. Out of deposits of more than $200,000 in the bank, at the time, less than $2,500 was found by the receiver.
13.
April 13, 1906
The Springfield Herald
Springfield, CO
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
SCHIFFER DECISION. Wealthy New York Brother Not Held Liable. Pueblo, Colo.-According to a decision handed down Thursday by Judge Riner in the United States Court, Herman Schiffer was not a member of the firm of H. Schiffer & Bro., owning the defunct Bank of Alamosa at the time the institution closed its doors. Judge Riner in effect held that the connection of Herman Schiffer with the firm of H. Schiffer & Brother, had not been proven. The court held that the burden of proof of an existing partnership must rest with the petitioners and that SO far as the evidence was concerned, this had been of a negative character. The fact that the firm name of H. Schiffer & Brother had been continued after Herman Schiffer had disposed of his interests to Abraham and Isaac Schiffer, could not be regarded as evidence of partnership from the fact that authorities had held that the firm name of a concern was a portion of its assets and that through the purchase of the business and good will of the firm of H. Schiffer & Brother, the purchasers had succeeded to the firm name also. Herman Schiffer was consequently released and discharged from all responsibility in the matter. while Abraham and Isaac W. Schiffer were adadjudged bankrupt according to the prayer of the petition of the creditors. This decision releases Herman Schiffer from liability of about $200,000. which as a director of the Alamosa bank he had been sued for by depositors. The proceedings grew out of the failure of the Bank of Alamosa which was owned by the Schiffers, Isaac and Abraham. The case in court was to determine whether Herman Schiffer of New York, who is said to be a wealthy manufacturer. was actually a member of the banking firm. The failure was most sensational and created much bitterness against the Schiffers. Abraham. the active head of the bank. was brought to Pueblo from Alamosa in order to insure protection and to await a hearing in the federal court. The failure occurred in October, 1905. Out of deposits of more than $200,000 in the bank. at the time, less than $2,500 was found by the receiver.
14.
April 13, 1906
Rocky Ford Enterprise
Rocky Ford, CO
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
SCHIFFER DECISION. Wealthy New York Brother Not Held Liable. Pueblo, Colo.-According to a decision handed down Thursday by Judge Riner in the United States Court, Herman Schiffer was not a member of the firm of H. Schiffer & Bro., owning the defunct Bank of Alamosa at the time the institution closed its doors. Judge Riner in effect held that the connection of Herman Schiffer with the firm of H. Schiffer & Brother, had not been proven. The court held that the burden of proof of an existing partnership must rest with the petitioners and that so far as the evidence was concerned, this had been of a negative character. The fact that the firm name of H. Schiffer & Brother had been continued after Herman Schiffer had disposed of his interests to Abraham and Isaac Schiffer, could not be regarded as evidence of partnership from the fact that authorities had held that the firm name of a concern was a portion of its assets and that through the purchase of the business and good will of the firm of H. Schiffer & Brother, the purchasers had succeeded to the firm name also. Herman Schiffer was consequently released and discharged from all responsibility in the matter. while Abraham and Isaac W. Schiffer were adadjudged bankrupt according to the prayer of the petition of the creditors. This decision releases Herman Schiffer from liability of about $200,000, which as a director of the Alamosa bank he had been sued for by depositors. The proceedings grew out of the failure of the Bank of Alamosa which was owned by the Schiffers, Isaac and Abraham. The case in court was to determine whether Herman Schiffer of New York, who is said to be a wealthy manufacturer, was actually a member of the banking firm. The failure was most sensational and created much bitterness against the Schiffers. Abraham, the active head of the bank, was brought to Pueblo from Alamosa in order to insure protection and to await a hearing in the federal court. The failure occurred in October, 1905. Out of deposits of more than $200,000 in the bank. at the time, less than $2,500 was found by the receiver.
15.
April 14, 1906
The Idaho Springs Siftings-News
Idaho Springs, CO
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
SCHIFFER DECISION. Wealthy New York Brother Not Held Liable. Pueblo, Cola.-According to a decision handed down Thursday by Judge Riner in the United States Court, Herman Schiffer was not a member of the firm of H. Schiffer & Bro., owning the defunct Bank of Alamosa at the time the institution closed its doors. Judge Riner in effect held that the connection of Herman Schiffer with the firm of H. Schiffer & Brother, had not been proven. The court held that the burden of proof of an existing partnership must rest with the petitioners and that so far as the evidence was concerned, this had been of a negative character. The fact that the firm name of H. Schiffer & Brother had been continued after Herman Schiffer had disposed of his interests to Abraham and Isaac Schiffer, could not be regarded as evidence of partnership from the fact that authorities had held that the firm name of a concern was a portion of its assets and that through the purchase of the business and good will of the firm of H. Schiffer & Brother, the purchasers had succeeded to the firm name also. Herman Schiffer was consequently released and discharged from all responsibility in the matter, while Abraham and Isaac W. Schiffer were adadjudged bankrupt according to the prayer of the petition of the creditors. This decision releases Herman Schiffer from liability of about $200,000, which as a director of the Alamosa bank he had been sued for by depositors. The proceedings grew out of the failure of the Bank of Alamosa which was owned by the Schiffers, Isaac and Abraham. The case in court was to determine whether Herman Schiffer of New York, who is said to be a wealthy manufacturer, was actually a member of the banking firm. The failure was most sensational and created much bitterness against the Schiffers. Abraham, the active head of the bank, was brought to Pueblo from Alamosa in order to insure protection and to await a hearing in the federal court. The failure occurred in October, 1905. Out of deposits of more than $200,000 in the bank, at the time, less than $2,500 was found by the receiver.
16.
July 28, 1906
The Monte Vista Journal
Monte Vista, CO
Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
Thomas Edna M. The Mutual Elec L & Co. The Alamosa Hotel Co. Timbrook C M. The Herfurth & Wolfe Mer Co, The La Jara Town Co. The Sprienters bach Hdw Co. The Braiden Rd Co, The Victoria Hotel Co. 'V" Van Sands Robert, Vigil Fred. Valdez JCL Vandiver SE Vandiver 8. W Wilcoxon Thompson. Wilson Leroy Willis Henry W. Willia Mrs W. War shauer Fred. Worcestor H. Warren Henry, Willis Jas, Walker John. Wall rich C. Wilkins A A. Wilkins Oscar. Webb & Grantham. "Z Zegob A, Zegob Roaa. In the Dist. State of Colorado ( Court. Rio Grande County The People of the State of Colorado versus Abraham Schiffer and Isaac W. Schiffer Nolle Prosequi. To the Hon. District Court: There are six cases. No. 1291. 1292 1293, 1294. 1295, 1296, now on the crim. inal docket of this Court wherein both of the above named defendants are mentioned as defendants. And No. 1297 vs. I. W. Schiffer. All of these cases have grown out of the Failure of the Bank of Alamosa. In order that there may be n record of the reasons assigned why these cases are not further prosecuted. I desire that this statement be filed and spread upon the journal of this Court. When the Bank of Alamosa failed on the second day of October, 1906. there was a great grief and consternation among its depositors and the people generally. and a loud clamor for a vigor ous prosecution and a speedy trial. In the performance of my official duties an district attorney of this judicial district. r I at once instituted criminal proceeding against both of these defendants with the view of vindicating the law and bringing these defendants to justice, if they had committed a crime. I was t confident then that the defendants were guilty of many crimes in connection with the conduct of the Bank of Alamosa. My investigations confirmed that belief n and I still think that they are guilty and should be punished. i The defendants or their kinsmen have provided funds from which about three fourth of the depositors have been paid one third of their claims. Further pro visions have been made for the payment of the remainder of the depositors. An a condition of receiving the money on the claimants re to a statement d me to cease prosecu deposits. quired request sign the further have wherein been pend they tion of these canes and other cases n n ing in other courts of this district against these defendants Said request y being in words and figures to wit: *Lotter t same as the one preceding the names of depositors. The nanses of all the prosecuting wit. IF neares are included among the signers of these statements. except two who deemed that they be reimbursed, to the full amount of the loaned sustained by as them at the hands of the defendants, in dicating it was more a question of price than principle. A few of the depositors have refused to sign for ethical reasons, 1 a few have refuned to sign because the c price is too low. and others have pro J mised to sign. A. Whatever may be said in criticism of ID making such a request of a public office 4 er. or in justification of it. the fact re mains that the persons who have been injured by the misdeeds of the defend d. ants have made it impossible to secure is conviction in these casse No prosecutor can go before M jury in a criminal case with any hope of convict ing when the prosecuting witness is die HE credited or his motives in instituring the prosecution are in question. as they now are in these cases. Not that their truth . fulness would necessarily be questioned, but the fact that an accuser has made solemn oath to an information and asked a an that the accused be dealt with accord. ing to law. and after receiving a money consideration though it may be in part is D. payment of an honest debt. is willing to. and done. not the District Attorney to deaist from further prosecution. smacks . est much of persecution rather than prum cution and in such a handicap that the protect for the people in this in ⑉ stance feels that he would he unable to overcome it and declines to try. In this d the CAUSE of justice and good govern ment must nutter and be subordinated to 2. the merceanary spirit of the times. but see no alternative. To further prosecute these cases would In a mockery and would incur additional needless expense. With this I request that a NOLIK PRINK QUI he entered in each of them cases to the end that the depositors of the Hank of Alamona may have that for which they have petitioned and her which they have been paid. JAMES D. PILCHER. District Att May 1906.