The morning call., 1894-06-30
A Second Time Appointed
Receiver.
UNDER THE GoLDTREE SUIT.
More Peoples Bank Arguments
Before Judge Hebbard.
sHoRTRIDGE IN VAIN PROTESTS.
This Case Decided to Have a Wider
Scope Than the Others and
Protection Necessary.

Judge Hebbard went through the ordeal
once more yesterday of wading through
interminable arguments connected with
the affairs of the Peoples Home Savings
Bank.
The various attorneys interested as
senbled TO discuss the order to show
cause why a receiver should not be ap-
pointed in the case of Nathan Goldtree
against the Peoples Bank and its direc-
tors. This case. it will be remembered.
has differed at the outset from the other
cases W hich have occupied the attent On
of the court from the fact of its being a
suit by tockholder. Similar to that
brought by E. II. knight in most ways. il
differs from it by reason of the grave
charges which Goldtree brings against the
directors, who are accused of willfully
abandoning their trust.
Attorney Spelling represented the
plaintiff. as before, while the defendant
bank an some of the directors were repre-
sented by S. NJ. Shortrldge. Henry E.
Highton. who represented Directors
Graves and jenkins, said that be wished
to take no active part for the present, but
20 abide ;he issue of events. Receiver
Sheehan's interests were watched by James
Alva Watt.
At the outset of the proceedings MIR.
Shurtridge introduced for the defense an
ffidsvit OF Director Charles Montgomery.
fled that morning. The affidavit denied
generally and specifically ali the allega-
lions contained in the complaint. Mir.
Montgomery deposed that the recent ac-
tiODs, or rather want of actions, of the
directors were not of their own seeking,
as by the injunction they were restrained
| from doing anything at all.
1t was charged In the complaint that the
directors had refrained from holding meet
| ings and transacting the affairs Of the
| bank. That was not so, Mr.. Montgomery
affirmed, but they have not held meetings
! for tear of being committed for contempt
| of court. Nor was there any disagreement
whatever among the directors.
! Mr.. Spelling objected TO the introduc-
ton OF the affidavit. as he had not seen it
| before. Judge Hehbard, however, al
| lowed it 10 be introduced, and then the
rest OF the morning was passed in intro
ducing the affidavits of DR.. BOushey,
! Graves, Jenkins and Montgomery, which
were used in the case brought by the peO-
pie against the bank, and otherwise in
! preparing the record for the purpose of
| argument.
L. the afternoon the shorthand report
/ er's notes of the proceedings in the Knight
case were introduced in evidence. alter
which Spelling moved that a receiver be
appointed. lie said he thought he had
! shown that there was dissension among
! the directors. that there had been an
| abandonment OF trust, and that under the
| circumstances the court could not very
| well refuse to grant his request
Shortridge moved for continuance OF
one week. He wished TO have time to
| prepare an answer to the long record in
trOduced. No harm could be done by
| granting such continuance, as the prop
erty was already in custodia legis.
Spelling said that was not so. True,
he said. General Sheehan is in possession
now under the appointment made in the
! Knight case, but there is an application
out for a writ of prohibition. Suppose
| the Supreme Court decides that General
! Sheehan's appointment was illegal? Why.
! then, this property will be lett without a
! receiver and unprotected"
Judge Hebbard denied the motion for a
| continuance. He said the scope of the
| present case was broader than in any pre-
vious action. Apart from any statutes, OF
any Supreme Court constituting thereof,
the very allegations ia this complaint,
prma facie, suggested the relief de-
manded.
As to MontgOmery's affidavit Judge
Hebbsrd said that could not be considered
as the affidavit of the corporation. 'Mr.
| Montgomery denies the abandonment
charged in The complaint, yet he does no,
refute the other very grave charges.
Now, there is distinct evidence as to
an existing disagreement between these
| seven directors. One will not resign
two insist on resignlng come what may
| three want certain men to be elected in
/ their places, and three want their sue
cessors chosen from list of $50 names.
| That is evidence enough of dissension.
'sIn paea that the SuDreDoa Cnurt boI
! find my appointment of receiver in the
| knight case illegal the property would be
] left unprotected. Il behOoves me- there
fore. To appoint receiver in this case and
let you take ii to the Supreme Court as
! quickly as possible"
Zone moment" pleaded Shortridge, ''be-
fore your Honor makes t. e appointment"
| and the banks attorney made long and
| powerful address against the appointment.
| His chief argument lay iB the contention
| that it was very hard TO accuse men-whO
| could not act because their hands were
ted-Of abandonment of their trust. II
was so in this case and in no way justifia-
bic. The property was already in custodia
| legls and the appointment of a receiver
was unnecessary. The directors were
ready and willing at any time to meet or
to do anything suggested to them. Let
that be done and let these proceedings be
| quashed.
Judge Hebbard. however, adhered to
| his original resolution. lie said he under
stood there was a st0ckb olders' meeting
called for July 8, which might have the
| effect of dropping all these proceedings.
10 the meantime General John f. Sheehan
would be appointed receiver, under bonds
| of $4,000 TO cover damages and official
| bonds Of $4,000.
The arguments on the demurrers and
| the application for modification of the
| injunction in the Knight case went over
until July 13