Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1910-02-11
FEiNER HEARING
Referee in Bankruptcy Considers
Claims and Protests of Creditors.


! The hearing in the Louis Feiner pro-
ceedinss, the matter Of accepting the
composition offer of rs cents on the
dollar and some of the cIims against
the estate that have. been contested
| was begun before Referee In Bank
ruptcy A. j. Bowen in the rooms of
the board of trade Thursday morning.
A number of creditors We're pres
ent and several attorneys representing
various creditors. A petition was read
by Referee Bowen that was filed by
Attorney Meltzer of Bridgeport for Le-
ma Roserf, one of the creditors. The
petition protested allowing the claims
OF l. Ross $500: J. Brand 5000. r A bei.
$500; F. Goldberg $500; H. Rosenheist
5000; Mr.. Streicher $500: X Abess
S2Oo; Aaron Feiner 81 ,052; Aaron F'ei-
Ier $3.50: all of Providence: s. I. Co
hen of Boston s21S: M. Markoff of
TINS city $3.50; J. Peck of this city $500;
A. Peck of this city 5000; A. Filler
also of this city. 5000. All of these
mold notes against the bankrupt
The petitioner charges that these
claims are, fraudulent and should be
rejected. On the composition offer
Referee Bowen ruled that this would
be taken up later. and directed that the
examining of creditors be done.
Attorney Bugbee who represented
the a,nkrupt. filed q motion that the
referee order that the creditors who
nad petltionSd to have the claims re-
lected file bond to protect the estate
against any. extra expense. providing
1T was found that there was no. ground
found for throwing out any of the pro-
tested claims. Attorney Hinnan. who
represents the trustee also>ffIed a mo-
ton for similar bond. Decision in
the matter was reserved.
Attorney l.. n. Zisman of Providence
then obtained the floor and argued
protesting against the referee accept
ing the petition, on the ground that it
should have been filed by the trustee
and not by creditor. After consider
able small talk the referee decided
that he would accept the petition for
ors whose claims were attacked
Attorney Meltzer called on $ l.
Cohen of Boston to answer, regarding
his note for $21S. Nothing was brought
out to contradict the validity of the
claim Mr.. Markoff was called to ex-
plain about his note for $3.50. and he
said that he gave Mr.. Feiner the mon
ey July s, 1908, and Mr.. Feiner gave
him a bond and when he had filed his
claim he gave the bond to Attorney
There was a lot of talk
about the bond and many questions
and finally ATTORNEY Hinman told the |
referee that no bond had been given |
him and that all the papers that Mark !
on had given him We're filed with the /
proof of claim. and then it was dis /
closed that what Mr.. Markoff had been /
styling a bond was the note for $3.50 |
given by Feiner to him. He told of
gaming Mr. Feiner money on other
occasions and said that he was ac-
;ustomed to carry considerable sums
If money by him all the time. He de-
lied that Feiner had promised to pay
lim anything more than 25 cents on
he dollar. in the event of the estates
After recess it was brought out
hat the protests against the claims
# F. Goldberg and NJ! Streicher had
10 standing. these parties. had not {
lied any claims whatever against the
state Attorney :. 3. Harvey made |
motion that the hearing be adjourn
d to allow the creditors and their
ttorneys time TO investigate the con-
ested claims more in detail and per-
nit the trustee to delve into the mat
er- The referee stated that he would
ot grant the motion at that time.
Joseph Peck was questioned by At
orney Harvey relative to the $500
ote that Feiner had given him. Mr.. |
'eck was somewhat befuddled as to
pecif1c dates upon which transactions
7ere alleged to have taken place be- !
ween him and Mr.. Feiner. He said
hat the note bore interest at per
ent. and that the interest had been
aid twice but that he made no record | !
{ the time when the same had been
aid He admitted that since the note
ad been made that he himself had
500 from Mr.. Feiner but he ;
ad paid this back and it was not a
art payment on the note. There was
ose questioning regarding the writ
lg on the note and the proof of claim;
e said thai he did not know whose
riting it was. He kept no bank ac- I
punt and he paid Mr.. Feiner in cash
nd at that time he carried as much ]
) $4,000 in his pocket.
Jacob l.. Feiner, son of the bank {
Ipt, identified the handwriting on the 5
eek note the Markoff note and on l
lie proof of claims of the two notes
his own, saying that he did most
the writing for his father. The ex-
nination of creditors was not COM {
eted at the conclusion of the days
caring.