Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1911-01-07
.pp,1caTIoN FOR A cO-RECE1VER.

i
| ing Mr.. R. G. L.. Moncure moved that
co-receiver be appointed to settle the
affair of the Virginia Safe Deposit and
Trust Corporation. Mr.. Moncure is
the attorney in the case of Robert IL.
Coward, co.receiyer in the case OF Mary
E. Lewis, administrators OF Robert d.
Coward. Mr.. Moncure, after making
the motion, suggested that the court
continue the motion until the report oil
the special examiner shall have been
made. The court would then have more
to act upon.
Judge Nicol, who said he represented
a large number OF depositors, was not
fayoring nor opposing the appointmeh.
Of q co-receiyer. He desired the court
To n1rsue the plan which would result
hest n the depositors. He believed the
latter would be paid in full and that
the stockholders would receive large
part OF their investments. he had per-
feet confidence in the present receivers,
but should the court. in its wisdom,
think it proper to appoint another, he
would suggest the name OF Mr.. 1. Z.
Smith, cashier of the Alexandria Ma
tional Bank, for the position.
Mr.. Gardner l.. Boothe stated that
he represented persons having $50, 600
in deposit in the corporation and stock
holders with about $50, 900 invested;
also the First National Bank. He
wanted something definite done as soon
as possible in order that those he re-
presented might know with whom they
had to deal. Mr.. Boothe said if other
receivers were to be appointed each
branch bank would want representa-
tive, in which case the transaction OF
business would be seriously hampered
and the court would be in continuous
session. He thought the present re-
ceiyers the proper men IN the proper
place.
Mr.. S. G. Brent thought the motion
should be continued until further in
formation shall have been obtained OF
the affairs of the bank. Attorney Gen
eral Williams, he said, was in the city
yesterday, and he might desire to file
petition in court. II reports in circula-
ton en- the streets are correct, Mr..
Brent said, the assets OF the Institution
will not meet the claims OF the de-
positors.
Mr.. Robinson Moncure concurred
with Messrs. Moncure and Brent,
believing it best to continue the
motion for the appointment OF &C.
receiver.
Mr.. J. E. Grmsley, OF Culpeper,
said about $50, 900 had been deposited
in the bank at that place, while peo-
Pile in that town and vicinity had
about $50, 900 in stock. He and those
he represented were satisfied with the
present receivers, and were opposed
to increasing the number. But if such
was found necessary, Culpeper wanted
to be represented.
Mr.. George E. Walker, OF Charlottcs-
vile, followed. He said the bank in
that place had between $4,000 and
$50, 900 in deposits, while at Loyingston
between $4,000 and 100000 had
been placed in the corporation. Mr..
Walker moved to dismiss the motion
for n co.receiver, but stated that should
the court think more receivers necessary
Charlottesville wanted to be represented.
Judge Norton said the present re-
ceivers had not sought this response
bility, but the directors had urged IT
upon them. He said the receivers had
been working assiduously TO keep things
straight in the face OF the fact that
there are eight branches with which
they have to deal. Should the question
OF the appointment OF another receiver
remain open, an uncertainty would
prevail. Should another receiver be
appointed the present ones would be
compelled to go oyer everything again.
Judge Norton called attention to the
fact that but one depositor had made
application for co-receiyer, and said
that this was not the time to postpone
the motion, as some definite action
should be taken at once. Should it be
thought necessary in future to have
additional receivers the same could be
appointed. He believed the appoint
ment OF co receiver at present would
result in confusion. He urged the i'm
mediate disposition of the case.
Judge Barley reminded Judge Norton
that when he began to speak he used
language which was understood to
mean he would say something in con-
nection with the banks affairs.
Judge Norton in reply said at the
present time he could not see how any
deposition could losea cent. He thought
that with Mr.. RiXey's assignment OF
property all demands could be met.
Mr.. Brent asked if it were fact that
Mr.. Rixey had subscribed for $3.50, 900
OF stock for which he had not paid.
! Neither Judge Norton nor Mr.. ]. S.
Barbour could answer the question.
The latter said that so far as the knowl-
edge OF the receivers went there was
no foundation for the report
Mr.. Brent said these were public
matters with which the public should
be acquainted.
Judge Norton said the receivers could
not give out detached statements. Such
a procedure would cause trouble and
confusion,
Judge Barley-"How about the
value of the property turned over by Mr..
Rixey %
Judge Norton said the total value was
100000 He said he could not give
the actual value Of each piece; the
farms we're said to be valuable.