New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-05-29
THE MOUNT VERNON BANK.
ARGUMENTS BEFORE JUDGE DYKMAN.
COUNSEL FOR Mr.. ROGERS ADMIT SOME OF THE
cuARGrs-DECISIoN RESERVED

CHARGES DECISION kE,ERN I'D
The argument in the case OF James L. Reynolt%
a director fol the Vank Of Mount Vernon against the
bank and Gouyerucur Rogers, the president TO re-
strain the bank from issuing any further cerulcats
Of stock containing clause which the pEihun
alleged operated against the value Of said stocks as
collateral and also TO eniOn the bank from Lending
f. any or all directors sum exceeding Onetm'o
the capital stock. which is $4,000. came up DeioN
Judge pykEan in the supreme Court at Nh'e fh"hS
Yesterday and occupied the attention Of the cou'
during the greater portion Of the day. Mr. Key
nolds WAS represented b. Manson J. PRIME u
Yonlcrs and Wilson Brown, IT.. OF White Plains.
while the bank directors and SIR. Rogers were repre-
,onted By Isaac VI. Mills. County Judge. and ex-
Jude William H. Robertson.
The plaintiffs allegation that President Rogers had
repeatedly borrowed from The bank sums oil money
I'm excess Of that allowed by law, and that he "'t
borrowed money for himself under representations
that. II Tor others. Was admitted. Mr. lHmo
argued 10 the court that the bank insolvent ana
that for seven years dividend, had been declared
although the stock quoted at 30 lie contended
that under the law all powers to Increase the stock
mast be provided for ia the articles Of association
and that such clause existed and further that the
clause relative to the transfer OF stock Illegally
inserted ana that il was a fraud upon the law. lilo
charged that seven times in the banks history
loauS were made to President Rogers in open viola
ton Of law H. referred letter written By Mr..
Nesbtr, boolkecper employed b. Mr.. Rogers, where
In The former denied that he ever bor-
Iowcd money from the Tank althoush the
books Of the bank, the plaintiff alleged showed that
$4,000 had been lent TO Nesbitt a call loan. lie
also charged that. although under the law Il not
exceeding $4,000 should be ont call loans, yet
the bank director, permitted the figure 4 run up
high $4,000. and that IN many Instances tho
call loan book did not show what OF Interest TO
DO paid. Application for the appointment Of a re-
ccver was Withdrawn.
In answer To the plaintiffs charges. Judge NILS
conended that there nothing In the whatever
except that the certificates of stock did contain hcob
jectonable clause rccted in the complaint but this
clause. he said. inserted in the cates by and
with the authority. consent and direction Of the stock
holders and diTcctOrs lie admitted that call loans
had at different times been made by the bank - Mr.
Rogers. but declared that such loans al all limos
aud la every instance made upon abundant and ample
Rogers, had IN few instances obtained call loans
through other people As TO the non payment Of diN
bends since December 1881 Judge NILS said that in
view Of the small capital stock Of the bank II by
a large majority of the stockholders and directors,
deemed advisable moi To declare dividends but TO ac-
cunuate profits Tor the purpose Of practically incHs
ing the capital stock and strengthening the banks
position In the public confidence. II had been the
intention of the present Board OF Director, to Snp
the payment OF dividends on July l. The reason 81
leged for not doing this before that the stata
Bank Examiner had recommended the accumulation
OF surplus because of the uneasincSs existing In
Mount Vernon after the failure OF the private bank
JUDGE pykmon took the papers and promised an
early decision.