Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
NEWARK SAVINGS BANK-AN ORDER FROM THE CHANCELLOR-NO FURTHER RUN ON THE HOWARD INSTITUTION. The run on the Howard Savings Institution of Newark and the Newark Savings Institution continued yesterday, but the excitement diminished very considerably, so that by the afternoon it had almost entirely died out. The Chancellor issued the following yesterday:In Chancery of New Jersey-In the matter of the Newark Savings Institution- petition, &c.-It being represented to the Court on behalf or the managers of the Newark Savings Institution that in pursuance of the order of this Court made in this matter on the 12th day of December inst., authorizing them to pay to depositors eighteen per cent of their deposits, they are engaged in making such payments to a large extent as the same are demanded. and that in order to do so promptly it is necessary for them to dispose of the government securities belonging to the said institution from day to day as circumstances require: also that it in desirable to receive payment of money due on bonds and mortgages when offered, and to cancel or assign the same. Also, that the said managers. on the evening of Monday, December 10 inst., determined that it would be necessary to take the proceedings which resulted in the order made by the Court on the 12th inst., and thereupon. being unwilling to accept deposits from persons who were unaware of such determination and yet unable to refuse the same In anticipation of the expected intervention of this Court. they received all deposits offered. but did not enter the same upon their books or mingle them with the funds of the institution, but held and marked each identical deposit so that it could, If deemed proper, be returned to the depositor. It is thereupon, on this 14th day of December, 1877, ordered by the Chancellor as follows:First-That the Newark Savings Institution may from time to time dispose of its government securities at market prices, or borrow money on the same at current rates, to MIL amount sufficient to pay the eighteen per cent to deposi tors and the January dividend of two per cent directed to be paid by the said order of December 12, inst. Second That the said institution may accept payment in full of any of its bonds and mortgages, and upon such payment may cancel the same or make assignments thereof without gaarantee. Third-That all deposits made on the 11th and 12th days of December. inst., and prior to the service of the said order of the 12th of December which were not entered on the books, but kept separate and identified, may bereturned to the respective depositors of the same in full. Fourth.-That in order to facilitate the business of said institution and to close without delay any transactions requiring prompt attention, Amzi Doad one of the special masters of this court, is hereby designated to hear and consider any special matter concerning the business of said institution which shall be presented to him on behalf of said managers. and to report thereon to the Chancellor and advise what order or decree shall be made therein; but this direction shall not embrace the payments to be made to depositors, the disposition of the funds of the institution, or matters relating to its general manageTHEODORE RUNYON, Chancellor. ment. MORE SUITS AGAINST THE TRUSTEES OF THE THIRD AVENUE SAVINGS BANK ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR JOINT BOND. Judge Van Brunt having satisfactorily made up his mind on the question evinces a determination to enforce the rigorous exactions of the law upon the trustees of the Third Avenue Savings Bank, who, in December, 1872, for the purpose of bolstering up the already tottering concern, gave their united bond for $100,000, which, from that time until the bank was compelled to suspend operations, was incorporated among the assets of the bank in the statements made to the Bank Department at Albany. As already stated in the HERALD, suits were brought by Mr. Samuel H. Hurd, receiver of the bank, against these trustees. The initiatory suit brought to trial was that against Mr. Morgan, in which Judge Van Brunt directed a verdict ID the full amount of his liability on the bond. Several additional suits were tried yesterday before the same Judge, Mr. Frederick Smyth, counsel for Mr. Hurd, appearing as prosecutor in each case. The same points were raised for the defence as as the trial of Morgan, the main one being want of consideration. All these objections were overruled, as at the Morgan trial. The first suit tried vesterday was that brought against John H. Lyon, former president of the bank. The amount of his bond was $5,000. His counsel, Mr. Robert A. Sewall, interposed a counter claim of $6,000 for services as president and a turther counter claim of $600 for moneys deposited by him in the bank. The first counter claim was ruled out on the ground that there was no resolution or authority of the Board of Trustees fixing any salary for such services. As to the second counter claim it was shown that the money deposited was interest on a Tarrytown income guaranty bond. This claim was also ruled out and a verdict directed against him for $6,384 49. The next ID order was the suit brought against William A. Barnes, former vice president of the bank. His counsei strenuously sought to have the case dismissed, but without avail. The amount for which he became liable was $10,000, from which, however, $2,500 was deducted on account of an allowance ordered by a vote of the Board of Trustees at the time of the execution of the bond. The verdict against him was $9,617 50. A second verdict of $383 40 was also directed against him on a Tarrytown income bond. Against W illiam B. Harrison, whose liability on the bond IS $10,000, a verdict was directed for $13,523 33 on the bond, and an additional verdict of $777 30 on a Yonkers bond. Against James Owen, whose liability on the bond was $5,000, but wao was included in the $2,500 allowance, " verdict was directed for $3,361 10, and an additional verdict of $383 40 on a Tarrytown income guaranty bond. In the case of George Henk.b. Jr., whose bond was for the same amount, and who likewise was given the benent of the same allowance, a similar verdict was ordered, together with another verdict of $777 30 on Tarrytown income guaranty bonds. Among the parties against whom suits are still pending, and which cases will be brought to trial on next Monday, are William C. Darling, whose liability on his bond IS $15,000; Spencer K. Green, whose hability 18 also $15,000; ex-Judge Kelly, whose liability is $10,000. and D. D. T. Marshal, whose liability is $5,000. Mr. Thompson W. Decker, whose liability on
