Tonopah bonanza. [volume] (Butler City [i.e. Butler], Nev.) 1901-1909, 1909-10-09
WOULDN'T II JAR YOU?

The report Of George Han, the receiver Of the defunct Nye
and ormsby County bank. contains some interesting data, from
which the deluded depositors will hardly gain either comfort Or
consolation. His statements regarding the condition of the bank
itself, shows a condition Of affairs which can be described by no
other word than that Of ROTTEN. In fact. ii is so rotten, dis
gusting and putrid that it is a stencil in the nostrls Of any man
who has even i pretenae to honesty II respectabinty. But even
more surprising and startling are the charges he makes In refer
ence to the business relations existing between the defunct Ne
and ormsby bank and the First National banlt Of Carson City.
From his report, the following extract is taken:
"One thing is quite evident from the records Of the Nye and
ormsby county bank, and that il that the First National bank Of
ana ormsby County bank, the lot and brick building situate there
On in which said First Nataional bank is now conducted, as well
~ other assets Of this bank, WITHoT EVER HAVING CoMPEN7
sATED THE NYE AND oRMsBY COUNTY BANK THEREFOR"
n another part d the report Hail states that lie had over
$1,000 Of deposit in the First National bank Of Carson CITY, to
hs credit as receiver OF the Nye and ormsby County bank and
that he presented to the First National bank a check for the sum
Of $1,000 drawn by him as receiver On said bank against said ac-
count and that payment On the same was refused, According to
Hall, payment on this check was refused, not by the president Of
the bank, nor by the cashier Of the bank, hut BY whom? Wasn't
Il FRANK GOLDEN IN addition to all Of this. Hall further
charges as follows;
ION the 18th day Of August presented to said bank for
payment a check drawn upon said bank, against said account for
the balance then. on deposit to my credit as receiver, to-wit, for
the sum Of $7,7SS06, upon which payment was refused and the
check was protested for non-payment; on the gath day Of August,
1909 made q demand upon the said First National bank Of Car
son City thar the coin then held BY them on deposit to my credit,
on open account. to-wit, the sum Of $I78131 be held by them as
q special deposit and rendered to them the sum Of SIS as fees for
the keeping Of the same for one month from date and requested
9 special receipt for the same. WHICH WAS REFUSED
50 that the readers o. the Bonanza may have a clear under
standing Of the significance Of such action it should be remem-
GeFed that the First Nataional bank Of Carson city is 4 national
bank, subject to the direction and control Of the comptroller Of
the currency. The deposit Of Receiver Hall in said bank was the
deposit Of an officer of the court, Hall, as receiver of said bank,
and as custodian Of said money, being the courts representative.
The mere fact that he demanded payment of money on deposit to
his credit was sufficient reason for the payment thereof to him
and there could be no legal reason why his demand should be re-
fused, and we feel safe in asserting that such a reprehensIbIe and
pefniei6us act will receive proper attention from the comptroller
o. the currency.
For what reason can any bank refuse to pay the check Of a
depoaitor having a sufficient sum on deposit to meet the check
drawn? To our way of thinking, there can be but one reason, and
that is. THAT THE BANK DID NOT HAVE THE REAL COIN 10
PAY SUCH A DEMAND. IS THIS THE REAL REASON OF THE
REFUSAL OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CARSON
CITY TO PAY THE CHECKS OF GEORGE HALL, RECEIVER?
The reader is left to draw his own inference!