First National Bank - Albany, NY

Bank Information

Episode Type: Suspension → Closure
Bank Type: national
Bank ID: 267
Charter Number: 267
Start Date: May 16, 1894
Location: Albany, New York (42.653, -73.756)

Metadata

Model: gpt-5-mini
Short Digest: 2b9789c8

Response Measures

None

Description

The article (Indianapolis Journal, 1894-05-16) identifies the witness as receiver of the First National Bank of Albany, N. Y. and describes his activities as a receiver. The text gives no account of a run preceding the suspension; it indicates the bank was in receivership (i.e., closed/failed). Therefore this is classified as a suspension leading to closure (suspension_closure). Date given is the newspaper date when he is described as receiver; no explicit suspension date or run is reported in the excerpt.

Events (1)

1. May 16, 1894 Receivership

Newspaper Excerpt: He said his home was in Erie, Pa., and he was at present receiver of the First National Bank of Albany, N. Y.
Source: newspapers

Newspaper Articles (1)

1. May 16, 1894 The Indianapolis Journal Indianapolis, IN

Article from The Indianapolis Journal, May 16, 1894

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

is completed. After the amicable adjustment of this controversy the checks were admitted in bulk over the objection of the defense to the competency of the evidence. The objection was on the same grounds as previous objections to similar evidence, that it was under the general counts, and under these, according to the construction of the defense, the government was only entitled to show one substantive offense. Mr. Robinson was handed two letters written by Haughey to F. A. Coffin while the latter was in London. and identified the writing of Haughey In the letters Haughey spoke of a proposition to make a stock company of the glue works, and said he liked the idea, but feared the expense. The other letter spoke of the indebtedness of the cabinet company, and said it was a great burden to the bank, and something must be done to relieve the bank. He said the bonds would be due in one month, and that the cabinet company must do something to help the bank meet them, as they must be paid. These letters were admitted over the objections of the defense, Mr. Miller urging the objection. The objection was that the letters were the property of the defendants, and the government had no right to seize their papers and introduce them in evidence against them without their consent. EXPERT HAYS CALLED. Expert Hays was called to the stand by the government. He said his home was in Erie, Pa., and he was at present receiver of the First National Bank of Albany, N. Y. He went into a bank in 1873 as messenger and occupied the positions between that and assistant cashier. He gave his evidence in a continuous statement, unaided by questions from the attorneys. In explanation of his knowledege of banks and banking, and to show his competency to testify as an expert, he said he worked upon the failure of the Penn Bank, of Pittsburg, involving $2,000,000, the Metropolitan, of Cincinnati, involving $3,000,000, and the Fidelity, of the same place, for the wrecking of which its president, E. L. Harper, served a term in the Columbus prison. He said he came to this city on Aug. 27, 1893, under directions from the Controller of the Currency, and took charge of the Indianapolis National Bank and made an examination of its affairs. His investigation was general, except in those particulars which appeared to him to be irregular. He examined, in part, the books of the glue works, curled hair company, cabinet company and the bank. He remained until Dec. 22, under the control of the Controller In March of the present year he returned under the direction of the Department of Justice. On his first visit he had a conversation with A. S. Reed. He went to the office of the cabinet company and asked for the books of the plow company and the veneer and panel company and Reed told him there were no such books, or that he would not find any such books. Mr. Hays said he felt some little embarrassment in talking to Reed, as he knew the latter had been arrested, and told Reed that what might be said to him could not be considered confidential in any way, and to say nothing that would incriminate himself. Reed said he had nothing to conceal. Mr. Hays asked him for the minute book of the cabinet company, and he said it would be found in the cash drawer, but it was not found after considerable searching. Reed was asked if the company did not keep a bill book, and said the only thing of the kind was a private memorandum belonging to himself, which was kept at home. Hays thought the book was properly the property of the cabinet company, as it was the only book upon which the details of the multitude of transactions with the bank were entered. Reed said Hays might see the book and make any examination of it that he desired. and afterwards brought it to Hays at the bank and permitted an examination of it and answered all questions put to him concerning the entries upon it. fter this Reed turned the book over to Hays voluntarily. Reed said nothing about the deposit of $44,000 on May 9, 1893. Hays could not find upon the books what he wanted to know about this deposit and asked Reed about it. Reed said Haughey had sent for him about May and said the $27,000 carried as cash items and the overdraft must be taken care of, as they were liable at any time to be called upon for a report to the Controller, or to have a visit from a bank examiner. Reed suggested how it might be fixed. When he went back to the cabinet company F. A. Coffin asked how he got along at the bank, and was told that the $44,000 in paper was prepared and taken down and deposited and the cabinet company given credit for it. Hays told Reed that from his examination of the books he saw that the paper of the cabinet company in the bank seemed not to be drawn against value, and Reed said there was no pretense that it was drawn against value, and Haughey knew it was not. Reed said they had endeavored to keep within the ten-percent. limit, and when his attention was called to Section 5200 of the United States statutes providing a penalty for discountcounting bills in excess of the ten-per-cent. limit unless drawn against value said it was the first time he had éver heard of a law. such Mr. Hays then took the stock book and read the names of the stockholders of the company for 1893. They were as follows: A. S. Reed, 1 share; P. B. Coffin, 418 shares; Walter Stanton, 22 shares; Rhoda M. Coffin, 476 shares; Flora R. Coffin, 167 shares John M. Roberts, 11 shares: Lydia R. Coffin, 151 shares: W E. Coffin, 468 shares F. A. Coffin, 1,286 shares, and John Roberts, share, disposed of March 28. 1893. In January 1882, dividends had been declared as follows: Roberts, $12,240 F A. Coffin, $12.240; W E Coffin. $7,480; C. F. Coffin, $5 440. The expert said that the account of the cabinet company with Lydia R Coffin, of New York, closed by the execution of a note to Mrs. Coffin for $10,826.07 The books indicated that the note was given for a dividend. The minute-book of the cabinet company showed that in 1893 F. A. Coffin was receiving $7,500 as president of the company, P. B. Coffin $5,000 as secretary and A. Reed $1,500 as treasurer Mr Hays testified that the capital stock of the cabinet company was increased from $110,000 to $150,000 by putting paper in the Indianapolis National Bank. Mr. Hays testified that on June 30, 1893. F. A. Coffin's account with the cabinet company was overdrawn $4,100, notwithstanding he had on Jan. 6 of that year received a dividend of $12,000. The account was made good on July 24, 1893, the witness said. Mr. Hays further testified that the books of the cabinet company showed that on Feb. 22, 1889, the patents of the company were valued at $2,200; on the following day they were valued at $51,000. Before the cross-examination of Mr. Hays by the defense Mr. John P. Frenzel was called to the stand by the government and testified that the debt of the cabinet company exclusive of that to the branches and the bank. was about $30,000, and including that to the branches and Lydia R. Coffin was about $83,000. The government asked what efforts he had made to dispose of the property since he had been in possession of it, but an objection to the question was sustained and the court adjourned till 2 o'clock. EVIDENCE FOR DEFENSE.