Carson City daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1907-1930, 1909-12-07

when tae hearing of the final re-
port and resignation of the receiver
of the Nye 4 Ormsby Bank was call
ed in the district court this morning
Attorney Boyd, who was on the stand
at the close OF yesterdays session,
was called to the witness chair again.
He was examined by Attorney Chartz
regarding what duties he had per-
formed for the receiver and the
amount of time that had been con-
sumcd by his firm in this work.
Among other things Mr.. Boyd was
asked about the deal in which Golden
asked that the Jarvis ranch held by
the n. 4 o. bank should be trans.
ferred to l.. l.. Patrick. To this re-
quest Mr.. Boyd had refused to accede
and as the attorney for the receiver
instructed the latter to refrain from
entering into this deal in any way
with Mr.. Golden or Patrick unless
by an order of the court. Mr.. Boyd
further stated that his instructions
in this matter had been the principal
cause of the hard feeling between he
and Golden. Mr.. ChartZ went into
the matter to considerable extent,
but brought out no facts outside or
that Boyd stated that he did not know
the reason of Golden's desire that the
transfer be made. but that as it was
his opinion that 1t should require an
order of the court to make the deal
he instructed the receiver to have
nothing whatever to do with the pro-
position
During tae cross examination Mr..
Chartz began working away from
the question before the court
whether the fee asked for by the
attorneys for the receiver, $4,000, was
an excessive charge. and 'ae court
requested that only questions directly
relating to this matter be taken up.
Mr. Boyd stated to the court that
owing 10 the fast that the federal
court was in session and that two
attorneys, Massey and Summerfield.
we're engagcd therein, that he could
not present these gentlemen as wit
rcsscs to testify that his claim for
fees was lust. In order that the
court might hear their testimoy an
adjournment was taken to 1890 at
which time the two gentlemen hal
stated they could appear in the dis
trict court examination.
This afternoon Attorneys Summer
field and Massey were called by Boyd
to testify as to reasonable fee that
could be charged for the services
rendered to the receiver in the bank
case. The matter in detail was pre-
sented to Attorney Summerfield who
took the stand first and after detail
ing the entire proceedings in full he
was asked by Mr.. Boyd what he
would consider was reasonable
fee. Mr.. Summerfield stated that If
the facts as presented by the attorney
for the receiver We're true that he
would consider that fee of $4,000
was excessive.
Mr.. Chartz then tok the witness
and after asking him a number of
questions brought out the fact that
Mr.. Summerfield did not consider
that the attorney for the receiver
was entitled to a fee for the services
rendered in the Golden contempt
matter and the writ of prohibition
issued out of the supreme court re-
straining the receivers which had
previously been appointed by Judge
Averill of TonOpah from acting. He
thought that this fee being elimip-
ated as the work had been done pre-
vious to the appointment Of the re-
ceiver of the bank that 4 thousand
dollars should be deducted which
would leave the fee for services
rendered in the amount of $4,000.
Mr.. Chartz introduced the state
ment showing that the receiver OF
the bank had collected through his
own efforts and that Of his attorney
an amount Of about $2SOO and asked
Mr.. Summerfeld what would be a