The Semi-weekly leader. (Brookhaven, Miss.) 1905-1941, 1914-06-24
ACEMEHT or BOTH ASSGNEES AND BOTH ATTORNEYS RECOMMEND
Ed AND ACCOUNTANT WlLDHERGER. OR SOME OTHER IMPAIR
TAL MAN. SELECTED TO ACT AS RECEIVER WITH
SOME NEW ATTORNEY.
ASSISTANT CASHIER TULL DREW OUT
5000 ON THE MORNING OF FAILURE
W. Cassedy Attorney Advises against Suit Being Instituted Against
Bank Of Franklin It's Rights DepOsitor No Greater Than
Those Of Other DepOsiOrs-Oher Suits Recommended

vertisement," and that, as AS
signee, he would be compelled,
under the recommendations of the
report, to institute suits against
himself as a stockhoIder of the
bank.
We call the Courts attention to
the fact that Assignee Louis Cohn,
a stockholder and director Of the
defunct bank. would be compelled,
under the recommendations of the
report, to institute suits against
himself as a stockholder, and as
the maker of note involved in the
Bank of MeadviIle transaction,
and we think, against himself as a
Director who failed to direct in
this instance.
We, therefore, not only heartily
concur in the recommendation of
the Commission that one of the
Assignees be relieved of further
duties, but we earnestly insist
that both are totally disqualified to
act as AssiRnees, and respectfully
urge that both be by Your Honor
removed, and another assignee. a
wholly impartial. disinterested
man, be appointed.
At this juncture, we desire es-
pecially to commend the work ac-
complished by Auditor Wildberger,
and we further recommend that it
would be to the best interest of all
concerned that both the present
Assignees be removed, and that
Your Honor could do no better
than to appoint MIR. Wildberger
as Assignee, to continue and con-
clude the good work he has begun.
We wish it to be further UNDER
stood, however, that while We
earnestly recommend Mr.. Wild
berger still any disinterested. i'm
partial, capable man will be satis-
factory to the depositors.
With reference t. the Attorneys
connected with the management,
we desire to call Your Honor's at
tention to the fact that Attorney
Hiram Cassidy. stockholder,
director and attorney of the Bank
before its decease. is propounding.
so we are advised, claim of his
own against the defunct bank,
amounting to about $500, which is
more than three years old, yet
which he is seeking, so we are ad-
vised, to have declared a prefer
ence claim, in the face of the de-
positors' interests Furthermore,
as Attorney for the Assignees, he
would be compelled under the rec-
concentrations of the Commission,
to institute suits against himself
as stockholder of the bank and
as signer of the note involved in
the Bank of Meadville transaction.
also. We think, against himself as a
negligent Director and perhaps as
a debtor of the bank, unless his
present Indebtedness is settled by
him.
We show that AttorneyI w. Cas-
sedy is closely connected to the
management of the bank by busi-
ness ties. and to do his duty would
have to sue his cousin Hiram Cas-
sedy with whom he advises as co.
attorney for the Assignees, and has
already advised against following
/ up the recommendation of the
commission that suit be instituted
against the Bank of Franklin.
We. therefore. while concurring
In the recommendation that one of
said Attorneys be removed, earnest
/ iy insist that it is to the best inter-
ests of all concerned that both the
present attorneys be removed, and
some other chosen who can and
will, without fear or favor, repre-
sent and push the depositors' inter-
ests. and institute the following
suits:
A suit against the Bank of
Franklin, since 1t is unfair for the
Bank of Franklin, whose president
was F. F. Becker and whose cashier
was and is a son-in-law of F. F..
Becker. to be preferred by the de-
lfunct Commercial Bank & Trust
Company, whose President was F.
F. Becker. Its rights as a deposit
Itor are no greater and no more
sacred than those Of the other de-
Ipositors.
A suit against the Stockholders
Of the Commercial Bank & Trust
Company:
A suit against the Crosby Bonds
Lumber Company;
A suit against the Arlington
Foundry Il Machine Company;
A suit against persons who were
deposltors of the bank but whose
money was returned;
A suit against the nine Directors
Of the bank who either owe the
bank on nete which they have not
paid. or else had wrongfuIly had
the bank to operate the Bank Of
MeadvilIe. who are in either in
stance liable:
A suit against the Directors Of