Tonopah daily bonanza. [volume] (Tonopah, Nev.) 1906-1929, 1913-05-09

pdlu dlVluendb 35Z,5b4.3l, which sum /
must be paid before the depositors |
can hope for or be entitled to further
dividends.
5. That said Frank l.. Wildes, re.
eeiyer herein, on the hearing of said |
petition for aforesaid order fixing |
his compensation as such receiver on |
the goth day Of January, A. d., 1918, |
as shown by the transcript of proceed. |
ings had and testimony taken on the !
hearing Of the petition Of the receiver
tor order fixing compensation and on
page Il thereof, testified that he had
paid out In dividends the sum of
s2l2,000.00, when in truth and in fact
as shown by the reports of Frank
l., Wildes. receiver and on file, he
only paid out the sum Of s1S0.460.34.
6 That the court upon the hearing
of the petition Of the receiver for
said order fixing his compensation
finds The net results OF this policy
OF conservation is that notwithstand-
ing the fact that the original assets
coming into the hands Of the receiver
are practically intact and Of far
greater value than when he received
AhNiAAf Nv HhH PaiA ONFt AMO
thousand dollars in dividends over
and above all expenses; when in
truth and in fact. no inventory of
the assets of said bank on hand at
the time said receiver took charge
II the same on May is, 1908, was or
has ever been filed in this court, and
it was, therefore. and 1t is now man
ifestly impossible for the court to
determine whether or not the "origi
nal assets coming into the hands of
the receiver are practically intact
Z. The court upon the hearing of
the receiver for said order fixing his
compensation as such receiver, and
in its decision and order based there
on. finds that "one law suit, that
against the directors, which was set.
tied for S75.00000 cash, clear gain
TO the bank not coming from its as
sets: whereas in truth and in fact
and in law one director, the president
Of said bank. n. b. Hickey. should
under the record disclosed, have been
held liable for and legally compelled
10 pay more than three times the
sum obtained by the compromise with
all the directors.
s. That the court in determining
the amount OF compensation of said
receiver, Frank Wildes, took into
consideration the fact that said
Wildes gave a bond for one million
dollars, when in fact the amount of
said bond should not have been TAX
en- into consideration In determining
the amount of compensation of said
receiver for the reason that the pre-
miums demanded by the surety com
panies furnishing said bonds were
paid for and allowed out of the as
sets of the bank.
J g. That the court in determining
the amount OF the compensation TO
be allowed said Frank H. Wildes. re-
ceiyer. took into consideration the
testimony of Archibald G. Kains.
whose testimony so considered was
taken more than two years prior to
the time of its consideration by the
court on the hearing of the petition
for the order fixing the compensation
Of said Frank l.. Wildes, receiver
herein, which testimony so considered
is and was wholly incompetent to be
considered by the court in determin-
ing the compensation to be paid to
the said Frank H. Wildes as receiver
from and after the said testimony was
taken.
. 10. That the court in fixing the
, compensation of Frank L. Wildes, re-
! eeiver herein, made an improper and
exorbitant allowance to such receiver
, for the services rendered by such
receiver prior to the taking of the
7 testimony Of Archibald G. Kains, il
being shown by the testimony of said
: Kains and found as fact by the
! court in the fixing of the compensa
tion of the receiver herein that Mr.
} Kains is a banker of wide experience
/ having followed that line OF work
/ for a period of twenty-eight years
/ and at the time of the giving of his
+ testimony was the examiner of the
/. banks of San Francisco his duties
{ being TO make thorough examina
/ ton OF each bank In San Francisco
4 except savings banks, and the securi
[ ties back of each loan, said loar
/ amounting to nearly $300,000,000 in q
J, year. for all of which services Mr.
0 Kains received compensation o
!. $15, 100000 per year. Whereas, Franz
!. l.. Wildes, receiver herein, during the
e period of nearly five years only re
e ceived, disbursed and handled as sucf
!. receiver the amount of little ovei
& S400, 900 and was allowed by the cour
Il "a compensation at the rate OF $l0,OO'
a year from the commencement 0
G his administration up to thu
n 18th day of March, A. d., 1910 ex
G cept for period Of two months, TO
t which two months he was allowed
e $1,000 per month, and from said lStl
Is day of March A. d., 1910, up to th'
Il first day of August, 1912, being abou
n the date when the action OF Franl
r L. Wrdes VS. the directors of tn
l. state Bank and Trust company wa
" brought to close, and the jude
n ments were satisfied" he was allowe'
e $4,000 per year, which allowance
Is exorbitant, excessive and out OF al
is proportion for the services rendere'
d by him.
s. IL. That It appears from the rec
g ords of the receiver on file herel
z. that said receiver Frank b Wilde'
j. had drawn without any order OF couf
7, and without any authority, compenst
Al tion al the rate of $4,000 per yea
q. for all of the time after his appoln