Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1932-06-08
.COBLENTz BANKING
DEALS EXPLAINED
Matthias of Frederick Tes-
titles as to Guarantors'
Connections.
Special Dispatch to The Star.
GIrAHnEpI AND al

Special Dispatch to The Star.
CUMBERLAND. Md, June g.
Charles M. c. C. Matthias. vice president
Of Central Trust Co, Frederick, was
put en- the stand today at the trial Of
Emory l.. Coblentz, president of the
bank, charged with accepting a deposit
when he knew the bank was inso.vent.
to explain dealings of the Guarantors'
Investment, made up largely of bank
officials, with the parent bank. Matthias
Is treasurer of the Guarantors' Invest
ment. States Attorney James Clark
read a number OF items and Matthias
was asked to explain. the questions also
covering some investments of the Blue
Ridge Investment Co. Regarding the
Columbia Construction Co. note in
oorsed by Mr.. Coblentz, Matthias admit
TED IL had been in the bank for several
years. This was a little company he
and Coblentz had formed TO build houses
in Baltimore.
Following litigation, the affairs of the
company were wound up in 1928. This
note Of $4,000 was transferred to the
Blue Ridge Investment Co. It was
always tie understanding that Mr..
Coblentz was to pay this note.
Switching of Shares.
Matthias was quizzed as to the state
ment OF the Guarantors' Investment as
OF July 81, 1881, covering a series Of
notes they took up as an accommoda-
tIon TO Mr.. Coblentz, in which there
was much switching of shares and put
ting up as collateral with banks and
banking houses. The witness explained
ltems regarding the disposition or loca-
tlon OF bonds. coupons and securities.
Matthias was questioned at some
length regarding a note for $3.50 900
made by Samuel j. Henry. He said
Henry was an officer of the F. H. Smith
Co, Washington. and no interest had
been paid on the note for at least two
years. He said Henry had never re-
pudlated obligations, and he thought
the note, which originally was for
$3.50 900, was good.
He said the Massachusetts, avenue lot
in Washington, on which there vas a
trust note for $4,000. was handled at
loss and the equity was wiped out.
In answer to a question as to when
the GuarantorS' Investment began Dor
rowing from Central Trust Co., he said.
about March 20. 1880"
The liability ledger of the Central
Trust was then taken up showing the
first loan to the Guarantors' Invest
ment was $4,000 and it grew to over
81 100000.
When asked as to his net worth on
September 2, 1881, Matthias said it was
sufficient to meet his obligations He
said he owed the Central Trust Co.
directly $4,000 and indirectly about
$25 900.
Objection Is Overruled.
The court, after half hour suspen-
sion yesterday afternoon for consulta-
ton in chambers, overruled an objec-
ton by the defense to the admission of
certain financial publications in the
evidence which show ask and bid quota
tons on securities, both listed and I'M
listed. held on Washington real estate
as assets Of the Central Trust Co. and
its subsidiaries. the Central Securities
Co. These publications are to be con-
suited only in so far as they pertain to
items in evidence and from the period
January /, 1881, to September 81, 1881,
two days before the bank closed
Chief Judge D. Lindley Sloan. quot
ing authorities said the court was not
to be denied any reliable source Of in
formation over fair range in order TO
ascertain value.
The controversy arose when Thomas
Ray Gather Of w. w. Lanahan g. Co..
Baltimore investment brokers, took the
stand and financial publications and
market reports were produced These
were to give value Of unlisted securities
by showing bid and asking prices.
When Gather said that the bid price
would be the price accepted as the
value. the objection Of the defense was
registered, holding that the State should
show actual transactions where particu-
lar bonds were sold.
The National Corporation Bonds
Summary and the Bank and Quotation
Record as part Of the Financial and
Commercial Chronicle were admitted.
The court sustained the objection.
however, to the admission Of MoodyS
Manual of Investments in connection
with pages referring to the Wardman
Realty and Construction Co. and the
Wardman Real Estate Properties Co,
Inc. which showed set-ups, but did net
give prices. The defense claimed the
Wardman senior and junior debentures
are already in evidence. The State
averred it had proved the value of the
senior bonds and the set-up was to
show the junior bonds were not as good
as the seniors. In this connection the
State offered two deeds of trust in
evidence The defense offered objection
to the testimony Of Baither generally
and specifically to the unlisted Sc
curities.