Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
WOULDN'T IT JAR YOU? The report of George Hall, the receiver of the defunct Nye and Ormsby County bank, contains some interesting data, from which the deluded depositors will hardly gain either comfort or consolation. His statements regarding the condition of the bank itself, shows a condition of affairs which can be described by no other word than that of ROTTEN. In fact, it is so rotten, disgusting and putrid that it is a stench in the nostrils of any man who has even a pretense to honesty or respectability. But even more surprising and startling are the charges he makes in reference to the business relations existing between the defunct Nye and Ormsby bank and the First National bank of Carson City, From his report, the following extract is taken: "One thing is quite evident from the records of the Nye and Ormsby ounty bank, and that is that the First National bank of Carson City, Nevada, has taken over and received from the Nye and Ormsby County bank, the lot and brick building situate thereon in which said First Nataional bank is now conducted, as well as other assets of this bank, WITHOT EVER HAVING COMPEN, SATED THE NYE AND ORMSBY COUNTY BANK THEREFOR." In another part of the report Hall states that he had over $7000 on deposit in the First National bank of Carson City, to his credit, as receiver of the Nye and Ormsby County bank, and that he presented to the First National bank a check for the sum of $1000 drawn by him as reeciver on said bank against said account and that payment. on the same was refused. According to Hall, payment on this check was refused, not by the president of the bank, nor by the cashier of the bank, but by whom? Wasn't it FRANK GOLDEN? In addition to all of this, Hall further charges as follows: "On the 16th day of August I presented to said bank for payment a check drawn upon said bank, against said account for the balance then on deposit to my credit as receiver, to-wit, for the sum of $7,788.06, upon which payment was refused and the check was protested for non-payment; on the 24th day of August, 1909, I made a demand upon the said First National bank of Carson City that the coin then held by them on deposit to my credit, on open account, to-wit, the sum of $7,781.31 be held by them as a special deposit and tendered to them the sum of $5 as fees for the keeping of the same for one month from date and requested a special receipt for the same, WHICH WAS REFUSED." So that the readers of the Bonanza may have a clear understanding of the significance of such action it should be remembered that the First Nataional bank of Carson City is a national bank, subject to the direction and control of the comptroller of the currency. The deposit of Receiver Hall in said bank was the deposit of an officer of the court, Hall, as receiver of said bank, and as custodian of said money, being the court's representative. The mere fact that he demanded payment of money on deposit to his credit was sufficient reason for the payment thereof to him and there could be no legal reason why his demand should be refused, and we feel safe in asserting that such a reprehensible and pernicious act will receive proper attention from the comptroller of the currency. For what reason can any bank refuse to pay the check of a depositor having a sufficient sum on deposit to meet the check drawn? To our way of thinking, there can be but one reason, and that is, THAT THE BANK DID NOT HAVE THE REAL COIN TO PAY SUCH A DEMAND. IS THIS THE REAL REASON OF THE REFUSAL OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CARSON CITY TO PAY THE CHECKS OF GEORGE HALL, RECEIVER? The reader is left to draw his own inference!
