New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-05-03
EXCITED ABOUT A PAPER.
J. NJ. BOWERS SECURES AN ORDER
AGAINST STERN & RUsHMORE.
THEY AND TWO OFFICERS OF THE ST. NIcHO-
LAS BANK MUST EXPLAIN IN COURT ABOUT
A DOCrMENT-lR RrsHMoREs
STATEMENT.


Justice Lawrence. of the Supreme Court, yester-
day issued warrants for the production in court OF
Simon II. Stern and Charles f, Rushmore OF the
law firm of Stern e Rushmore; a. b. Graves Lew
c. Lathrop and Abraham Garrison. so that they
may be examined as to where certain papers De-
longing to the St Nicholas Bank are. Inc war
rants were issued on the application of Hugh j..
Grant the receiver The petition recites that
among the documents which came into the hands
OF the receiver large number OF papers pear
Ing upon certain transactions between the 81. No"-
oas Bank and the George Mather's Sons company
From the gis of certain letters. 1t was eafheu tid'
the bank had acquired title to quantity OF per
sona property and bills receivable which had been
sold at a receivers sale of the copartnership OF j.
II. Bonnell & Co. According to certain papers, the
bank had acquired title to some land III Long
Island City. Among the papers found there Is d
copy of an original paper purportng 10 DE an
agreement between the bank and the George Math-
er's Sons Company. by which it appears that the
bank is owner of the property. The receiver mas
been unable to find the original document ana can
get no information from the bank officers OF the
attorneys of Mather's Sons Company. john w.
Bowers, his lawyer. submits his afidaVit Una. ne
called at the office Of Stern & Rushmore. ana he
was told by Mr. Rushmore that the matter had
been attended to by Mr.. Stern Mr.. Rushnore
promised to see his partner. but Mr.. Bowers hearu
nothing further. the warrants were issued To-
day.
Mr.. RuShmOre who was seen NJ MS oiNN'' -'''
40 Wall-st was Indignant when the announcement
of these proceedings was called to his attention by
a Tribune reporter. He thought that Mr.. bowers
action was highly unprofessional He said I'VE
represented the owner Of a mortgage on some iac-
tory property In Long Island city, Originally oe-
longing to the j. Harper BOnnel Company hner
an agreement with the St. Nicholas Bank this mort
gage was assigned to the bank. think. MY part
ner Mr. Stern. had charge OF the matter AT the
time-about "A year ago. Some negotiations were
had with the bank relative to this mortgage. when
| attended TO at one time while my partner was
absent from, the city About two weeks ago Mr.
Bowers called on me and said that the iecelN''
of the St Nicholas Bank wanted the orlslha' -
of the mortgage, as ne unbeTSlooH va
we had II. told him that didn Know Hu,h
about the case, which was peculiarly IN my ~ i,
nnr's charge: that Mr. Stern sick, ana mat as
soon "a he came to the office would ma out All
about the matter and let Mr.. Eowers know men
Toned the fact that the assignment must DE Il
matter OF record. At all events. ...
Il did not suppose undcrstand that thN rnhtl-I
was OF urgency and ~ my partner hli'ss s"'
tinucd and SUI continues, have, as sussest.l
10 Mr. Bowers. awaited a favorable opportunity 10
communicate with Mr.. Stern. Ny partn-r SicN,,
ness has been such that no one has been I'rWittrl
to see him although he IS fast recovering, II ~
certainly surprising that Mr. Bowers should nave
adoptcI the course he has OF procuring an "ri'i
for an examination. as certainly non" was neceS-
sary. Mr. Bowers has not communicated WIN Hl',
and ~ he had explained that the matter was "u'
reoririug immediate haste should undoubtedly
have made extra effOrt TO see Hlr. stern hoo'l
IT, even If he were sick The mortgage must be
a matter Of public record and 50 far as KNOW
II has no relation to the affairs OF the 81 Nicholas
Bank"