New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-09-13
CIRCUIT DISCUSSES NOTES
saysBanking Department Turned
Them Over to Bank as Good.
aeLIEVED SULLIVAN LIABLE
nrder by Which He Would Be
Compelled to Testify in Bank
Case To Be Reargued.

rhe following statement was given out
r,seraay by Edward NJ. Grout:
referring to the testimony taken yester-
ssr concerning the note OF the Remsen
Sond and Mortgage Company, l desire 10
Ike the following statement:
TFis note OF the Remsen Bond and Mort
age Company and the Hulsart, Haggerty
80 Molloy notes. were four notes turned
svsr to the bank by the Bank Department
X August. 1875, as good, and they We're
hsnk In good faith. believing them TO be
rhat the Bank Department certified.
AGAINST all four notes were certain col
;ssy-al and the Bank Department had val
- tie notes according to the collateral.
= found some OF this collateral TO be value
l.ss and there were certain facts and
Lessons discovered which indicated that
N~ sullivan was personally liable for any
Sesc,ency which might arise. I therefore
b csnsidered these four notes in final effect
4 os Mr. Sullivans liability. The claim Of
me Rsmsen Bond and Mortgage Company
nat II was not liable Is 10 be taken for
SrIat ID Is worth. The Bank Department
las not accepted It as final. since 1t has
fegun suit against the company on the
Ne and the suit is now pending
Rut I obtained from Mr.. Sullivan and
earned over 10 the department with the
amer assets certain additional collateral
which was not mentioned in the testimony
Yesterday. 10 Wit. Mr.. Sullivan's half in
i4rest in a mortgage on the BriarWood
property, amounting | think, 10 about So
10: his half interest in the stock of such
eornpany which was always considered TO
10 worth at least $4,000, and under favor
aha circumstances would be worth very
much more, and also stopped payment on
an account IN the bank in the name Of L.
D Curnen amounting to $500 which was,
m fact Mr.. Sullivans money. total or
about $1,000. Whether the note was rightly
ropud.ated or not. the bank was secured for
he value OF the collateral
II was for these reasons that we con-
IL sd N hasa
notes az the value at which they were car
red. and until the various collateral which
was originally with the notes, together
with the additional collateral obtained by
ne. and the personal responsibility OF the
parties liable, are exhausted, know OF no
way in which any other figure could be
stated as the value Of these claims, unless
an arbitrary value should be assumed.
As 90 the values Of the bank 3 real estate,
the real estate was carried at the ap-
praisal thereof which the Bank Depart
inent made 10 the supreme Court on the
re0pening OF the bank
herein spoken Of, ! fully informed the
bank examiners at each examination OF
all facts known by me or or which had
information, and submitted the question
OF valuation 20 them.
The responsibility Of fixing such values
IN the first instance having been assumed
By the Bank Department I deemed IL lar
and right TO consult with its represent
q
Information which might thereafter a1ect
such values and not until the ldst eN-
animation OF the bank in March. lslv, dld
they suggest marking anything on me
hook value of the assets herein mentioned
or that they would have the real estate
/ request that this statement be given
equal prominence IN your columns win
ffat given the testimony OF yesterday
EDWARD NJ. CIRCUIT.
Edward ". Grout secured an order from
Justice Putnam. Of the Supreme Court,
BROOKLYN. yesterday. 10 show cause why
there should not be a reargument Of the
motion OF the Attorney General for a war
rant for Mr.. CIRCUITS arrest Saturday morn
.nr Justice Putnam decided that the war
rant. which was intended 10 bring Mr.. Grout
before the Union Bank Investigators. should
be issued on Thursday. Mr.. Grout wished
70 appeal from the decision. but legally he
Rad no right to DO so.
The object OF securing a reargument or
the Attorney Generals motion IS 10 have
me case so presented that points OF law
can be raised on which appeal may be
taken. The argument on the order 10 show
cause VIII be held Friday and the warrant
under Saturdays decision viii not be Is
sued for Mr. Grout until a reasonable time
after the decision upon the order 10 show
cause. Mr.. Grout is wanted as a witness
BY the investigators, as he is former presi-
dent Of the Union Bank. lie failed to ap-
rear voluntarily and later failed to obey
subpenas demanding his presence. The At
torney General then asked the court for
warrant directing the Sheriff 20 produce
Mr. Grout IN court
Charles Rather. builder, Of No. IS Pow
ell street will not be allowed 70 join with
his fellows on the grand jury in the Union
Bank inquiry which they are 10 take up this
afternoon. After the jury was sworn in
Monday. II was learned that Mr.. Rather
had dealings with the bank and owed II
money.
Objections have been raised 70 Foreman
John r. Gels because Of his friendship with
Mr. Grout Assemblyman Goldstein was
sworn in yesterday as a special Assista~-
District Attorney 70 aid in the investigation
OF Union Bank matters by the grand jury.