The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-06-30

laws and that 1t had other securities.
What are they?" asked Mr.. Bacon,
and Mr.. Wickersham's objection was
overruled again.
81 can't give figures" insisted Capt.
Greeuhut. "a cannot state the amount
Of its Indebtedness Its obligations to
my wife were for money loaned and
property transferred"
Disposition Of 1900 900.
"Whdt was done with the 5000. 0o07"
continued Mir Bacon. Another objection
was overruled
Well said Capt. Greenhut, I'VE put
IL in the bank in the first place. Am /
obliged to answer that question? ?"
Mr.. Olney said Yes"
We'll" capt. Greenhut went on,
$500. 900 received in Ocloper and No
rember We put in various Investments.
stUcnr and bonds"
Goo securities asked Mr.. Olney.
Yes. Good securities"
At this point in the examination Mr..
G~eenhut y. iuested permission to confer
with his unset. Mr.. Paskus. II was
granted. Then MIR. Bacon asked about
the $4,000 remaining.
Well replied Capt Greenhut eagerly.
that might surprise you -
Answer the question Capt. Green
nut ordered the referee.
with that $500. 900 we helped out the
bank to pay back the depositors The
Monmouth Securities Company advanced
Si5O,0O0 to participate in "A oan OF
5000, 600 from the Guaranty Trust Com
pany to the bank to pay OF the depos-
itois. The bank presented securities
valued at 81 200 900. The Monmouth Sc
curities Company deposited $3.50. 900
with the Guaranty Trust Company and
subordinated It's claim on the securities
to theirs. There Ia about s6T5.000 10
800 900 still unpaid on that 5000, 900.
The Guaranty Trust Company holds The
securities"
capt. Grenhut." Mr.. Bacon then
asked. what IL the amount OF your per-
sonal assets over you personal Habit
tles?'
Grcenhut Say. lie Is solvent.
Both Mr.. Wickersham and Mr.. Pas
kus were on their feet al once objecting
TO that question. Mr.. Bacon said that
the creditors contended that Cap.
Grecnhut and The other partners In the
private banking Arm had drawn sSs0.00U
from the Greenhut store 10 pay the
banking firms debts and ought to put l.
back because they ought to BE- held
personally liable for the banks debts
despite indemnity agreements. which Mr.
Bacon said were unlawful. Mr.. Olney
said the question OF the lawfuln.ss oi
the indemnity agreements was "a nice
question OF law" but he considered Mr.
Bacon's question had a bearing on the
adequacy Of the proposed organization
scheme. Mr. Wickersham objected. say.
ing the profits Of the banking business
for eighteen years had accrued 20 tn,
store.
MIR Bacon says" Mr.. Oirey answered
that Capt. Greenhut paid of TIE bank.
ing debts with Greenhut Company,
money, thereby relieving himself and
his partners OF responsibility. and there
fore the indemnity agreements were un.
lawful. I allow the question"
IL am solvent responded Capt
G%recnhut, after another conference will
his counsel. but I am not in a position
to state the amount"
Well" continued Mr.. Olney. IN cas-,
they establish that claim that these pay
ments CsSS0,0O0) were made .mprop
erly and that the copa.tnership should
restore them. can you do it,"
This was the question tina. was Sc
aside until the next hearing.
In the earlier part OF the examinatio,
Capt. Greenhu; testified that the d,
rectors had discussed depreciation q
real estate .and diminishing bushes,
two years ago that the real estate as
easements on the Siegel Cooper propert,
had been reduced a million dollars II
four years hat despite the depreciation
the real estate was carried straigh
along on the hooks at the same value
lie also testified that he had nothing &
do with the preparation OF the finan
cial statements 70 the commercial
agencies. although ne said he knew som
% the ,'ems brought up by Mr.. Bacol
were included by the bookkeepers II
such statements.