The Waterbury Democrat., 1932-10-26
CLAIM BANKING
 LAWS VIOLATED
Cassidy Makes Charge in Sanditz & Traurig $4O,-
 900 Certificate
REEVES DROPS MOTION

Charges that the banking laws were violated by the transaction wherein the Sanditz & Traurig bank got a certificate of deposit to the amount of $40,000 from the Merchants Trust Co. and denials of the charges were made in the superior court this morning at a hearing before Judge Ernest A. Inglis. The hearing was called to determine the disposition of the $40.0O0 certificate of deposit of the Sanditz & Traurig bank against the Merchants Trust Go.
 The preferred claim presented by the Waterbury National bank, re- ceiver for the Sanditz bank, through its counsel, Attorney L. Russell Carter. Attorney Francis T. Reeves, counsel for the Citizens & Manufacturers National Bank, re- ceiver for the Merchants Trust Go. and Attorney Carter had just fin- ished their statements concerning the matter when Attorney John H. Cassidy, representing depositors of the Merchants Trust Co made the charges. He was answered by Att torney Max R. Traurig, represent ing depositors of the Sanditz bank, who termed the charges "wild statements" Fifteen lawyers were present at the hearing.
 Attorney Francis T. Reeves coun- sel for the Citizens Bank, ex- plained that the Waterbury Ma tional bank had filed claim for the payment of the certificate as a preferred claim against the Mer- chants Trust Co. He said pernis-- sion to file the claim was granted in superior court to the Sanditz and Traurig Go as corporation. MT Reeves explained further that the receiver for the Merchants Trust Co had flied motion asking that the $40,000 be applied as setoff against the obligation or Adolph Sanditz who signed a note for $4O,OOO when the certificate was issued.
 Attorney L. Russell Carter, coun.. sel for the Waterbury National Bank, agreed with Attorney Reeves that it was small matter that could be adjusted by the filing Of proper papers on which the su- preme court could hand down ruling.
 Attorney Cassidy stated he dis agreed with counsel that the is- sues were narrow or small Tn scope. He charged that $40,9OO in cash never deposited by the San dig &. Traurig bank in the Mer- chants Trust Co.,, but that a note was transacted showing the bank had a certificate of deposit In the amount of $40,000 in the Mer- chants Trust Co.
 He claimed the bank laws were violated in the transaction and pointed out that what amounted to an endorsement was made by one of the directors of the Mer- chants Trust Co. He stated that apparently the two banks carried the transaction as one transaction. and added he couldn't see how the court could term 1t 0 preferred claim against the Merchants Trust Co.
 Attorney Traurig stepped for ward and termed Attorney Cas- sidy's charges as Wild statements affecting men of high reputation and good standing in the commit nity." He added that Attorney Cas- sidy would be given an opportunity to substantiate those statements at LnC pTODcE Llulcy DuL LluI OAH6 III D them up at this hearing was high ly improper because they were dealing with a separate matter en- tirely.
 Attorney Cassidy, answering At torney Traurig, denied they were wild statements.
 Judge Inglis halted further dis cussion and instructed counsel to place the proper motions on the short calendar at which time q date will be set down for hearing the issues.
 Attorney Reeves said he will file Q motion asking the reopcning of the motion wherein permission was granted to file a preferred claim for the certificate of deposit and that he will also ask that his motion asking for a setoff against the San- ditz note will be withdrawn. The court will then hear the merits of the preferred claim of the Water bury National Bank.