Article Text

Argument Over Bank Receiver Continues Hot Clerk of District Court Claims Withdrawal of Objections Not Filed Aurora, Neb., Sept. 27. (Special)β€”The controversy over the appointment of E. H. Luikart as receiver for the Fidelity State bank of Aurora, which was made by Judge Landis last Friday, has been opened up by a dispute between Glenn Snider, clerk of the district court, and F. C. Radke, general counsel for the state banking department, over the filing of the withdrawal of objections to Luikart's appointment made in the name of J. A. Oberg, L. J. Waller, Fred Harrison and Ferd Nelson. This paper bears the stamp of the clerk of the district court as having been filed September 23, 1932. The clerk has written across this paper the following statement: "I, Glenn Snider certify that this instrument has never been in my office and that the filing stamp hereon was affixed without my knowledge and affixed by a person unknown to me." Signed Glenn Snider, clerk of the district court. Mr. Radke, accompanied by Mr. Stoll, chief of the receivership division, came to Aurora Friday and it is their claim that this paper was filed with the clerk and received the filing mark. They then went to Seward and secured an order from District Judge H. D. Landis permitting the withdrawal of these objections to Luikart's appointment. Judge Landis then appointed Luikart receiver of the Fidelity State bank of Aurora, the Farmers State bank of Hampton and the Giltner State bank of Giltner, all affiliated banking institutions. Radke and Stoll then returned to Aurora and it is their claim that they filed this order of the court. The clerk of the district court also insists that this was not filed with him and that the filing stamp was applied without his authority or knowledge and affixed by a person unknown to him. The original objections were filed by Attorney Charles F. Adams and the withdrawal of objections by the persons whom he claims to represent is in the following language: "We the undersigned, being those depositors whose names were used in objections to the appointment of E. H. Luikart, as receiver, hereby state to the court that we never authorized Charles F. Adams, the attorney who filed said objections, to use our names in said objections. Mr. Adams came to us individually and solicited use to file such objections, or rather to ask the court to appoint a local receiver, but we did not authorize him in any way to use our name in filing of any"