The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1843-09-01

In chancery against the ex-president OF the late Ma
tonal Bank, in order to discover to what purpose
wasarpled $500, 900 alleged TO have been taken by
him and the teller, John Andrews. To this bill
demurrer was put In, which we also append. The
principal argument seems 10 be- that the transaction
took place a long time ago. 1t will be observed
that the operations took place while yet it was
National Bank, before il became State institu-
tion:-
And your orators further state, that between the
10Th day OF February and the lst day OF March, in
the year 1886, or thereabout the said John Andrews,
being such First Assistant Cashier as aforesaid,
drew various checks orders on the sad First Tel
Ter, and received The money from the said First Tel
ter for the same, and delivered some part the
whole OF the same over TO the said Nicholas Biddle,
the said checks being drawn and the said money
paid over to and received by the said Nicholas Bid
die by concert between the said Nicholas Bddle
and THE said John Andrews. And your orators
further state that the whole amount of moneys so
drawn tor and received bv the said John Andrews
and paid oyer by MIN In whole or in part to the said
Nicholas bddle, amounted to the sum OF four hum
dred thousand dollars, or thereabout; and that the
said sums oil money, so obtained, were never ap.
pied to or used in any legitimate business of the
them, the said Nicholas Biddle and John Andrews,
or applied TO some uses by them, for which they
cannot claim credit against the said Bank or her as
signs, and were never accounted for by them to the
said Bank.
And your orators further charge, that the said
Nicholas Biddle md John Andre VS.. having thus
obtained the sum OF four hundred thousand dollars
and upwards did, In order to give different aspect
to the transaction, resort 10 sundry conirlvances to
1.-THE said checks of John Andrews, commonly
called Cashiers vouchers, for the said sums amount
ing TO tour hundred thousand dollars, or hereabout,
were las were, also, all the vouchers of the same
kindly retained by the said irs Teller in his draw
sr, until the day should arrive when he should be
CURED to account for the moneys in his hands, or
under his control, belonging to the said bank, which
nfInoc rad -
tered these vouchers in certain cash book kept by
him, called the First Teler's statement under the
head or title ct 'sundries," and the SAID Nicholas
Biddle and John Andrews, in order to repossess
themselves OF said vo chers caused ten notes of the
Bank OF the United States, called Parent post notes,
TO be executed by the officers to whom the execu-
ton OF such notes belonged, on the LIST day Of March,
1886, but bearing the date of the 10Th of February
1886, each OF said notes being for the sum of forty
thousand dollars, and caused them to be entered in
a certain book OF the said Bank, called "The
General Parent Post Register" but under the date
OF the 10Th OF February, 1886
And your orators further charge, that the said
Nicholas Bldde and John Andrews, having posses.
sed themselves OF these ten post notes. delivered
them to The said First Teller, and took from him the
said vouchers tor four hundred thousand dollars,
leaving these post notes substitute for the same
And your orators further state, that on about
the ist OF March 1886 that being the next account
Ing day OF the First Teller. the said Nicholas Bidde
and John Andrews did take out of the drawer of
the said First Teller the said post notes. and caused
the same to be burneu in the presence OF e,tan
COMMITTEE OF the Directors, called the Committee
on the state OF the Bank, to whom the office or
duty belonged of burning the circulation of the
said bank which had been redeemed and which it
was not Intended to relssue-ths duty having been
deputed to them bya certain resolution of the Board
OF Directors OF said bank passed on the LIST day OF
March, 1886
And your orators further state, that the said Nj.
cholas Biddle and John Andrews caused the said
Committee to believe that the said notes. SO burn.
ed, were notes which had been in circulation and
had been returned to the Bank and redeemed, and
were not intended again to be put in circulation
LAS the charter OF the said bank was then about ex
prlng) and which it,was therefore proper should be
destroyed: and that they also further caused the
said COMMITTEE TO believe that the notes. SO burned
were bank notes, that is, notes payable on demand,
Directors, the 10th OF March, 1885, that they had
on the LIST day OF March, 1885, counted, aud de.
siroyed by burning, the cancelled paper OF the said
Bank and its branches Withdrawn from circulation,
to wit: notes Ut the parent Bank, four hundred
thousand dollars notes of the various Offices tive
million one hundred aud seventy.eight thousand
eight hundred and twenty dollars; drafts of ditto,
seven hundred and three thousand nine hundred
and eighty dollars, max ing an aggregate of three
million two hundred and eighty-two thousand eight
hundred dollars.
And your orators further charge, that the said
Nicholas Biddle and John Andrews caused the said
resolution OF the lst OF March, 1885, to be passed,
authorizing said Committee "to destroy, by burn.
ing, three million two hundred and eighty-two thou
clSIt In nOteS. ldl0 aside 10 De
cancelled" they well knowing that the notes answer
ing the description in said resolution were short OF
three million two hundred and eighty-two thousand
eight hundred dollars, BY four hundred thousand
dollars; but they caused that sum to be inserted in
the resolution, Tor the purpose of furnishing them
with the means OF preventing the exposure OF the
said operation by which they had so obtained the
said sum OF four hundred thousand dollars
And your orators further state, that the said
Nicholas Biddle and John Andrews having SO caused
the sad post notes to be burned, they ordered and
directed the said Teller, in his statement of his cash
account to credit himself with four hundred thou.
sand dollars OF bank notes having been burned,
and TO reduce his line of "sundries" by an equal
amount. so that the line of sundries which had stood
on the 18th February 1886, at one million four hun.
bred and ffty-six thousand five hundred and eleven
dollars and forty-nine cents, was, the lst day of
March, 1896, million forty. nine thousand nine
hundred and hive dollars and iory.two cents; that
being the result OF the said subtraction with small
variance caused by the uctuating character of the
account
And your orators further state, that the said Bid
die and Andrews well knew thatby SO doing (accor-
ding 10 the course OF book keeping in The said bank
the parent lbank note account would be debited
Immediately, (as it in fact was,) with four hundred
thousand dollars parent bank notes as having been
burnt.
And your orators further state, that the books of
the bank contain an account Of parent post notes,
where any issue OF post notes which had been
ally and burnt or destroyed, should be de-
blted but as the said account is small compared
with the parent bank note account, it did not fur
rish equal facilities for these transactions as did the
said parent bank note account, although the
large denominations, in which post notes usually
were made afforded greater facilities of procuring
the proper subject for the said burning before the
committee, than ordinary bank notes, which being
OF much smaller denominations, would have requir-
ed greater labor ard much time to be created to the
extent of four hundred thousand dollars.
And your orators further declare, that it was com.
monty thought and anticipated at this time that q
very large amount OF the notes of the old bank
would remain In circulation, or were Destroyed and
would never be returned to the bank, in consequence
OF which the said account furnished the best means
OF concealment, as it was thought that the same
would never be balanced
And your orators further declare, that by means
Of the premises, the said Nicholas Blddle and
John Andrews did most ell ciually conceal their