Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1880-08-06

large sum to the Conn River Co. to enable
them to anticipate their next dividend. MIR.
Amidon replied that such loan would be de
sirable, and soon after Waite informed him
that the loan had been made. The question
was asked whether this note with one or two
others, had more than one signer, to which
Mr. Amidon replied that it had not, and that
additional signatures were not insisted on be-
cause, had the notes been genuine, they
would have been good with no names beyond
those of the parties borrowing the money.
Replying to still further questioning, Mr..
Amdon said that the Conn. River note of
$50, 900 was in excess of the limit fixed by
law for loan to single individual or con-
Germ, but that the company to whom the loan
was pretended to have been made was so un-
questionably good that the loan was sanction
ed as would have been done by any bank in
spite of the law.
+. w. Childs asked about a discharge
which the directors gave j. Estey in 1873. q
copy of which discharge Mr.. Chids read.
Mr.. Tyler explained that this discharge was
on account of an ovordraft by the old con-
Germ of j. Estey * Co. The discharge was
given to facilitate n settlement of the compa-
pany's affairs and when this sum of about
100000 was afterward paid across the banks
counter by Mr.. Estey, in instalments, the
natural supposition was that the money was
applied to cover the debt due the bank.
In reply to query whether he had ever
examined the books Of the bank, Mr. Tyler
replied that the books were always open to
inspection, that he had looked at them, but
that he had no reason to suspect crookedness,
and that he did not claim to be an expert in
such matters. With regard to question
whether the directors had ever taken means
to find out whether the signatures to the
notes were good Mr. Tyler said they had not
undertaken to ascertain that fact, but that he
had himself written to various parties to find
out whether the parties TO whom these loans
were pretended to have been made were good,
and in each case he found that they were.
During this general explanation some lively
passages arose, as when Mr.. Tyler denied the
charge that he had ever told any stakeholder
that he kneD the bank was al right, and chal-
lenged any one present to rise and say that
he had ever told him such thing. To this
G. a. Van Doom replied that he (Mr. Tyler
had told him that he knew the bank was all
right whenever he signed published report
as to the banks condition. Mr.. Tyler said,
in reply that he believed no gentleman pres
ent thought him capable Of certifying to re-
port which he suspected to be false, and that,
in times past, no man had believed more I'M
plicitly in s. NJ. Waite than had G. A. Van
Doom, and that Van Doom himself might
To this Mr.. Van Doom retorted that he had
a right to be cheated for himself, but that as
the custodian of trust for others he had no
right to take a supposition from anybody
he must kHotc that everything was all right.
Responding to a request from the stock
holders, Receiver Price appeared in the
meeting and stated that the direct liabilities
of the bank were about $50, 600, and the con-
tingent liabilities $50, O0O-these contingent
liabilities consisting of the $40, 600 life insur-
ance due Mr. Waite's sisters, $40, 900 on &C
count of bonds placed in the bank for safe
keeping and stolen by Waite, and $40 600 on
account of amounts involved in suits against
Waite in connection with the bank robbery
of l 81. Mr.. Price believed it would best
subserve the interests of the stockholders
should Mr.. Waite be placed i'll insolvency,
and resolution was passed requesting Mr..
Price to place him in insolvency.
Questions being asked relative to the organ
suit and the benefits liable to be derived by
the stockholders from the judgment in that
suit, Mr.. Price laughingly said that he thought
that was matter which might better be left
to the children and grandchildren of the stock
holders, but that it was his duty as receiver
to look after the interests of the stockholders
in that suit. Were Mr.. Waite placed in in
solvency it would devolve on the assignee to
take care of the suit. In reply to inquiries,
it was stated TO be the understanding that Mr..
Phelps, as senior counsel for the orator in the
case, would look after the case for the plain
tiff that he, Phelps, already had an interest
in the case amounting to some $4,000 or $1,000,
on account of services rendered, for payment
of which he relied on the outcome Of the suit;
and that, in all, the costs in the case would
amount to about $4,000. The whole matter
was problematic, however, there having been
no formal transfer of an interest in the suit
from Burdett to Waite, and in case the judg
ment should be confirmed, it would be ques-
ton in equity how much of the sum would be-
long to Waites estate. 1t was also stated that
the claim to participation in this Judgment,
on the part Of the stockholders, grew out of
the supposed fact that Waite had used the
funds of the bank TO prosecute the suit.
The question of an assessment being under
discussion, Mr.. Price said that solvent stock
holders could not be assessed, under a second
assessment, for amounts which insolvent
stockholders could not pay, and that up to
this time, no second assessment had ever been
made, unless some new liability had come to
light which necessitated such an assessment
Mr.. Price stated that nearly all the genuine
stock had been traced to its holders, and that
it was evident that about 1000 shares Of fraud
ulent stock had been issued
Toward the close of the meeting the ques-
| ton of issuing tangible reward to be paid
for Waite's return came up, and individual
subscriptions toward such reward, to be
| paid only on Waite's return and delivery to
| the local officers of the law, were pledged to
the amount of about SSOO-Amidon and Ty-
| Ter pledging 800 each, f. w. Brooks $50,
and other gentlemen sums of $25 and less
and F. W. Brooks, j. NJ. Tyler and f. w.
Childs were appointed q committee to raise
| the sum TO a full thousand dollars among the
stockholders. As an important reason why
| the stockholders should be anxious to secure
Waite's return, j. G. Eddy stated that he had
very strong reasons for believing that he car
ried away with him very large amount OF
money. committee of three, consisting OF
Fred II. Harris, f. L. Pierce and S. w. Kim
| ball, was also appointed to look after the in
terests of the stockholders, and the meeting
then adjourned, subject to the call of this
| committee.
On the whole, we think the meeting must
be said to have been of q satisfactory eharac-
| ter. There was less friction and manifesto
ton of ill feeling than might have been anti,
cipated in consideration of the severe and
| widespread losses which WRite's heartless
rascalities have occasioned. The directors
apparently told the whole story as far as they
knew it. They freely admitted that they had
been duped and hoodwinked, and that they
had felt confidence in Waite, in spite OF
current rumors, which kept them from sus
pecting his vilainies. Further than this, they
claimed to have exercised such ordinary care
as is customary with bank directors. On the
part of the stockholders, especially of those
living at a distance, there will probably be q
| better feeling as result of the meeting, from
the fact that they have had a full explanation
of the banks affairs, and can now feel thai
they know all that is to be known.