New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-01-23
OF sodawater and too small for building purposes was
LEOPOLD BAMBERGER'S TRUSTS.
RUMoRs OF HIS DISAPPEARANCE AND DISHONEST


RUMORs OF HIS DISAPPEARANCE AND DIsHoNfsii
DENIED.
II has been reported recently that Leopold
Bamberger OF No 146 West Forty-thirdst' VINO ID MS
sgnee of several bankrupt firms, had Disappeared
the city owing considerable money to the estates UNIT
lis charge Nearly three years ago Mr. Bamberger was
anponted assignee of the firms of A. Castle Co ana
Obrigtt & We'll. Joel f. Hyams, OF NO. loe west ''i'
second-st., and G.. ROsenblatt became INC suicuo'
on his bond. The amount OF assels vi Nae'o
& Co. was about $4,000, ana OF oprigh'
A. We'll, about $4,000. About a year ago MT
Uvaus reouested the court TO release him from
the obligation of bond charging that Bambereer hao
misappropriated 900 Of the Castle estate H. a
smaley was consequently appointed receiver ny 1uuSc
Donohue sbut this action subsequently reversed ny
the Supreme Court. The creditors ODrght " "ei'
afterward began in the United States Courts
70 effect change and Daniel A. Davis and Thomas D.
Adams appointed assgnees spec,n. w 10 tIa
then appointed to report as 70 me cohuaio o 1
funds His report showed that Bamberget was chaIgeu
with 15 500 10 received III cash, $1,000 in
and 81 O4s n interest on these sums. Jndge ~ atc
ford strength Of this report ordered hi W "h0
good the deficiency s -, rou,s.nd
Marcus j. wald6cmer, Of the law firm OF TOWNSEND ni
& Waldheimer, No. 29l Broadway Is sOn-hlaW W
Mr. Bamberger and is also his LAWYER I'D ieieIr aS
he story Of Mr. Sn ih fu aa his
father-n-law's fight was untrue; Mr. BamoorSef NE
from business some years ago. On account OF
his wealth. and because he had always DOT, porho
a good reputation he appointed assignee OF nan
dozen or more bankrupt firms The accounts OF an teo
firms xcept two had been closed and the money palu W
The creditors. In the OF Upright wen, ne WIS
only Slate assignee When the firm went through nanh
ruptcy proceedings the court appointed DAVIS anu
Adams assgnces. Mr.. Bambercer mad certain amount
of the firms money in his possession and dispute arose
as 10 how much he should return ana what amount
should be charged The assgnees CLAIMED tna
the charges too large. The court vas lnay resOcu
TO- and Mr.. BanlNergcT ordered 10 return between
$4,000 and III 900 This amount he considered 100 lgi
but il less than Davis and Adams Thought ne ought
to return. On several occasions he had OHclcd them
certified check for $1,000, which they had refused
Mr. Waldheimer further said that seven years ago MS
fatler-in-law made tour through Europe leIorc
leaving he became associated with Mr.. yains III Dulid
ing houses BrOome-st, Walker ST., ana other places
During his absence. about 100000 passed through
Hyanss hands On his return there was q dispute pe-
tween them relation to the money. An injunction
was fualy taken out restraining Hydins from cvtcl-
ing any more rents. suit was subsequently begun
against Hyams, which had not vet been decided. Mr.
Bambe-ger had left the city for lew days recreation
fl the authorities wanied him lie could be brought 10 inc
city within twentyfOur hours.
Thomas d. Adj ms said that Mr.. Bamberger had oncred
hun check for ri 900 to settle the account ol Onghl
a. We'll There was an unsettled difference OF about
SO. 900. He had lntndtion tiat MI. B"lu-
berger intended dishonesty In the matter . ~
Castle was surprised 10 hear that Mr. ambcrgcrs name
was associated with any KIND oi fraud lie had always
borne best kind of reputation As lar as he knew,
Mr. Castle said that his business was Deng setleu
honestly. l.. $500
MIR Bamberger is a wellknOwn Hebrew, and is con.
necttd with many of the Hebrew institutions. III le'E
lie was believed 10 be worth 100000