Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1916-03-09
THE BANK DIRECTORS
GET A CLEAN BILL
United States District Court Endorsers
Finding of Special Master in Chancery

L
| A few hours after last weeks issu,
of The Tribune had been printed news
was telegraphed to this city to the eff
feet that Judge Humphreys of Illinois,
sitting judge in the United States Dis
trict court for the western district OF
Wisconsin, had handed down his deci.
sion in the case of Christopher L. Viii.
Hams, receiver, versus the Directors OF
the defunct First National Bank OF
Mineral Point to recover from the di-
reotors sum sufficient to reimburse
the depositors of said bank for moneys
lost through its collapse.
The decision sustains the findings of
Hon. Alex Mathison, master in chan
Gerry, who ruled in favor of the direc-
tors, and is worded as follows;
UNITED States District Court, West
ern District of Wisconsin. Christopher
l.. Williams, Rec. VS.. Calvert Spensley,
ct 81.
1.-THE above entitled cause coming on
to be heard on exceptions to the re-
port of the Special Master, and the
Court having considered the entire re-
cord in the case and the arguments of
counsel, both orally end on briefs, and
being fully advised IN the premises,
finds that the testimony in the record
reasonably supports the finding of the
Master as to the facts, and that the
Master, in his conclusions, has made
proper application of the law thereto.
The report of the Master is therefore
approved and confirmed and decree
may be entered in accordance there
with.
Counsel for defendants may pre-
pare and submit form of decree.
Dated February 30, 1916.
HUMPHREY, j. :"
Judge Aldro jerks of Dodgevlle was
attorney for Calvert Spensley, T. M.
Priestley of this city for W. p. Gun
dry, and W. P. Pettis of Chicago for
James Brewer, r. j. Penhallegon and
j. l.. Gray.
Sanborn & Blake of Madison and
Miller, Mack and Fairchild of Milwau-
kee were attorneys for Receiver Will
lianls.
Ssyaat does all this reveal? Simply
then fact that The Tribune was right
when, at the time of public meeting
of the creditors held at the fire com
pany's building in this city over three
years ago, it advocated settlement
upon the showing by figures and facts
gathered that rs per cent and possibly
little better could be realized and
that the directors were innocent of any
criminal act. fact necessary to esta-
blish for the receiver to win. Such
were the conditions in nutshell, and
if the receiver and his attorneys could
not see it they certainly were incom-
petsnts TO say the least. And doesn't
this lead up to the question, who has
brought about a bigger loss to the
creditors than they should have sus-
tanned
The receiver, not being present at
the time said creditors meeting was
held. emphasized, however, by cores
pordence that the directors could be
forced to stand for all claims Of credi-
tors. Some creditors believed this, but
it il questionable if majority did, yet
by some maneuvre the sense of the
meeting was construed to the effect
that the receiver was right and should
continue with his prosecution; and this
has been done with five lawyers five
remember pulling the strings and not
without shrinking the creditors little
pile One point among certainties is
that large majority of the creditors
would gladly have settled at that time
for 70 cents on the dollar. What will
they get now; little or nothing, not
even any kind of satisfaction
You win, lose; win, you lose See ?