Show PARK ciiis S BANK CAS Et Sensational Accusations During the Progress of Arguments MISS JULIAS RECITAL J DEMANDS 2500 FOR IXJLKIES TO A BROTHERS CORPSE Judgments AKfrcpatiitp Over iSO I 000 Against the Grocs 5 ccks Suit A ruiiiNt Insurance ClmitnnicH t Ooi i romlsc l Motions ami Dc L mnrrcrs in Court Proceeding iu the Probate Court The motion to dissolve the attachment attach-ment by which the affairs of the Park City bank are at least temporarily tied up came in for another innings est rda r-da before Judge Bartch The arguments were opened by Snyder Sny-der of Park City who urged in support sup-port of the attachment that the assignment as-signment made on June 12 last was void because A B Richardson the vicepresident executed it That the ratification of the act by which the assignment was made was by a board of directors which requir eu toe presence or Richardson to constitute con-stitute a quorum Again that it required re-quired the presence of G D Gregor to make a quorum and that neither Gre gor nor Richardson were legal directors direct-ors of the institution at the time the l assgnment was announced Gregor JI contended counsel was not a director for the reason that he was elected at a meeting wherein it required the presence pres-ence of his predecessor Thomas Ca hoon to constitute a quorum Further that he was elected on the motion and with the aid of Cahoons vote after the latter had resigned and had no right to ate Counsel further urged that Richardson was no longer a director nor was he an officer in the bank for the reason that the bank had loaned Rf to a firm of which he was a member more than 10OOOvi 3815197 S Again that the loaning of this 3S 151 97 to Richardson or to the firm of which he was a member the loaning of 529000 to Kidder Bros and the loaning loan-ing of 15000 to McLaughlin Co a total of 82000 was wrongful and fraudulent disposition of the property I of the bank That all these acts ta Jten together constitute a fraudulent and wrongful disposition of the funds II and the creditors had a right to attack I itCounsel Counsel for the bank Arthur Brown esq contended that the officers of the bank were de facto that whatever they did or whatever act they executed execut-ed was with full authority of law and the court had no right to molest them Judge Powers concluding the argument argu-ment urged it upon the attention of the court that the attachment was bas ea on an affidavit tnat tne assignment I 3 was fraudulent that the defendant BJ took Cupits 2000 and Ascheims 873 well knowing that it was insolvent He denied that any act that was void could be made good by subsequent ratification rat-ification and the assignment having been made without authority of law the act of ratification could not legalize It Thomas Cahoon had resigned re-signed and almost on the heels of that step had taken part and led in the election of his successor If he could do that a minute after his resignation he could do it a month a year later or even now 4 were he hero in the flesh The board f I having accepted his resignation then Cahoon was no lonrer a member thereof there-of and had no right to take part in its delibeiations Attacking the part that had been taken by Richardson counsel called attentibn to the law which says a man shill cease to be an officer of a bank the moment his in debtwiness to it reached 10000 He had been deposed by operation of the law had no authority to make an assignment as-signment nor could the act be made legal upon the ratification of a board of directors that had been selected for that purpose The arguments closed the motion to dissolve the attachment was submitted Receiver McLaughlin of the bank stated to a Herald reporter that 110 stockholder in the bank had attacked the assignment which had been made in good faith and as one of the inevitable inevi-table results of its inability to realize on outstanding paper and until a I stockholder in the corporate body assailed as-sailed it no one else had a right to 6 j Motions unil Demurrers The following orders were made by Judge Bartch during the days grind Henry Fares vs the Park City bank demurrer to complaint heretofore submitted sub-mitted sustained and ten days to amend Deseret National bank vs W S Burton et al demurrer to cQmplaint Sustained and ten days to amend Henry Lindenmeyer et al vs Salt Lake Soap company motion for new trial argued and submitted Maria Beacher vs John D Shaffer et al demurrer to complaint withdrawn with-drawn and ten days to answer Utah Loan and Building association Ii l vs Isaac S Busby et al demurrer tow to-w complaint argued and submitted Oscar W Moyle vs B S Zttpp demurrer de-murrer to amended counter claim and cross complaint argued and submitted Board of Education vs William Lis ter et al denv 11ers to answer and cross complaint argued and submitted S W Darke vs Heber Young demurrer de-murrer to complaint withdrawn and live days to answer i Brigham Young Trust company vs c Henry Wagoner motion for new trial ¼ sent before Judge Merritt Max Freund et al vs Leo Hollander demurrer to complaint withdrawn and liv3 days to answer Seligman Oppettheimer vs Leo Hollander Hol-lander same ordy VIMiam Schauffden vs Henry Wagner Wag-ner et al transferred to JUdge Mer ritts division Judge Bartohs division was ad j > urned until 10 oclock this morning |