New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-01-20
BENJAMTy c. B0GERTS FRAUDS.

THE FORGED BERGEN COUNTY BONDS.
SUIT BY THE CHOSEN FREEHoLDERs AGAINST THE
MERCHANTS EXCHANGE BANK AND SHERIFF
BOWIE.
Suit has been begun in the United States Circuit
Court by the Chosen Freeholders of Bergen County,
New-Jersev. against the Merchants Exchange
National Bank and Peter Bowe, Sherilf. Inc
action arises out of the defalcaion Of Benjamin T..
Bogcrt. Treasurer OF the Produce Exchange
and ex-Colector of Bergen County The
complaint sets forth that the county was
indebted, prior to July, 1876, in the sum
of 1867, 800 upon bonds issued and then
due; that $4,000 in cash was paid and that 10Y
the balance 800 blank bonds Of $500 each were
priutcd that the county was authorized to issue
1913 600 in these bonds, and that accordingly O1o
blanks were used and the names OF the holders OF
the roaured bonds inserted therein. OF the blank
bonds two. numbered 102 and G5l. were defaced
and two others, numbered 721 and 722, were issued
in their stead The bonds issued were numbered
from to 1O1 inclusive from 1913 to $50 inclusive;
GS2 to G96 ncusive; and 721 TO 1872 inclusive
They were not registered but were exchanged Tor
the bonds falling due. After the issue
the remaining bonds, numbered Oo| 10
700 aud and 723 TO 800 inclusive remained
in the possession of the county, and Brgert comm
lcQed that Bogert frauduenty Obtained possession
of the blank bonds wrote his name rs C0llector
unun them after he had ceased TO hold the office,
and forged or caused to be forged the other names
re0uisite to complete them He also attached the
seal of the county to them. About September S7S,
Bogcrt placed them in the custody OF tine Aer,
chants Exchange National Bank. II Is asserted
that the bonds do not bear the names OF the
persons to whom they purport to be issued, or
TO whom they PAYABLE; that they were
never authorized by the Legislature OF NeW-Jefscy
that they were never in fact issued; that they are
now invalid and of no efficiency and that no inter-
est has ever been paid on them.
- lao In
tion in the Supreme Court OF this State AGAINST 30
cert for an Indebtedness of Jl 900. and the Sherlf
levied on his property, including the bonds, which
now remain in the bank subject TO the levy. The
claim OF the bank that the bonds were hypothecated
is denied Ii is asserted that BOgert was dcpostor
stakeholder and director of the bank, and
that the bank had full knowledge that
fine bonds had not been lawfully issued
The complaint further charges that the
bank bad known that Bo-ert was i'll hnancal dis
tress for months that for long time be had Deen
indebted to the bank that the bank knew that 30
$50 900 for than two years before the alleged
III Is pointed out that although the bonus are not
valid at present if they should pass into the hands
of bona iidc purchasers for value they might be
held to he valid and that under the attachment II
| come liable. IL is therefore asked that II
may be decrced that tie blank bonds
| were never authorized by law; that they are
not valid or existing obligations OF the Comfy OF
Bergen, but that they are iraudulent, null ana
void and that the bank may be decrced 10 deliver
them to the county authorities to DE cancelled III
is also asked that pending this suit tine bank may
| he euioined from parting with them and that the
Sheriff may be enoined from taking possession Of
| them.