The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1874-03-24
ton; and for convenience in making said
purchase and sale,

1T WAS AGREED
that the title to said property should be |
taken in the name of the said defendant /
Ruckle, and that he should hold said legal |
title in trust as trustee for said copsrtner-
ship, and should convey the same to such |
party or parties as the same might be sold /
to, and to account to the said firm for their |
interest in the same. That in pursuance of
said contract of co-partnership, the said firm |
did, on the day and wear last Aforesaid, pur-
chase said track of land for the sum of $780, !
600 the said RuclSle acting as agent of \
said firm, and which purchase was made on |
time, so that no money was paid down on |
tho same; and the deed in pursuance of said |
agreement between the members of said firm |
was taken to the said Ruckle and the legal |
title 10 the said premises thereby vested in /
him for the use and benefit of said firm |
That Afterwards and before any of the pur- |
chase money became due and owing on said |
purchase, the said lands were sold to the |
city of Indianapolis for the sum of Sl09, 900, |
and the said Ruckle then and there decided |
the same to the said city, aud the city of In |
dianapolis aforesaid, issued TO said Ruckle. |
her bonds for the said purchase money !
That upon the receipt of the said bonds of
the said city as aforesaid the said Ruckle
took up and discharged the debts and obi
cations that existed and were outstanding
for the said purchase money to-wit: the
500, 900 agreed to be paid for the same by
the said Ruckle, representing said firm. and
turned over in payment Of the same the siad
bonds of the city so issued to him, and in
said arrangement obtained a discount on
said purchase money of 500, 00O, amounting 10
the sum of $4,000, making the nominal
amount of said purchase money only tn
sum of 200, and making the net profits
arising from said purchase and sale
THE SUM OF S23, 600.
which sum the said Rackle aud his code
PENDANTS now hold. The plaintiffs aver
that the said partnership extended to but
the one mentioned, and that the same has
been fully completed, and that the siad
members of the said firm are entitled to the
full settlement and adjustment of the same,
and to their pro rata shares of said profits,
and to that end the said plaintiffs have
made repeated attempts with the said de.
PENDANTS, and especially Ruckle, to make
settlement of the same, but the said defend
ants, and especially the said Ruckle, have
avoided all such efforts, and avoided the
said plaintiffs, and have studiously with
| held all account of said transactions from
| the said plaintiffs. And the said plaintiffs
| believe and charge the same to be true that
the said Ruckle has entered into a con-
4
defraud the plaintiffs out of their just share
| of the profits arising from said partnership
| venture, and that he and they are giving
out and pretending that no profits have
been made on said sale, but that the whole
| of said apparent profits have been taken up
and expended in the pretended expenses of
| said sale to the said city of indianapolis in
| some manner wholly unknown to, and I'M
authorized by the said plaintiffs, and have
refused to make any statement of said pre-
IA~y a..
ment with the said plaintiffs. Wherefore
the said plaintiffs pray that settlement of
said partnership venture, and that the &C
count of the same between the said partners,
be fully stated and adjusted, and that the
said plaintiffs have judgment for their re-
proper relief. MCDONALD & BUTLER,
/ Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
INTEERoGAToRIEs.
The said defendants and each of them are
requested to answer the following interrog.
atories under oath:
/. "Did not the said plaintiffs make the
partnership stated in said complaint?
2. In arranging the terms of said partner
ship, did not the plaintiff, Fuller, act for
himself and his CO plaintiffs?
8. Was not the property described in said
complaint. purchased under said partner
ship agreement?
4. Was not the same purchased at the sum
| of 500. 900 on time?
5. Was it not the understanding that the
defendant Ruckle should hold the legal title
for the benefit of himself and the plaintiff:
| and his cO-detendants?
6. Was not the deed to the property made
to Ruckle in pursuance of this understand
ing?
Z. Did defendant, Ruckle, pay any part o.
+ the purchase money-if so, how much and
to whom?
. o What xvas tha op,oupt co. xvh;oh thas<
! lands were sold to the city of Indianapolis
Z and what did the city pay for them in?
9. Were not the city bonds received for
3 the purchase money, used in making pay
ment for the lands by Ruckle?
3 10. In paying the $50 600 for which Rucklt
] purchased the lands, did not the parties, oil
some of them, to whom the money was due
discount their claims, and what was the
) whole amount of the discount?
1 IL. Including the discount aud the differ
: ence between the purchase and sale of thes'
lands what was the amount realized Over
the amount paid or promised to be paid?
| IL. Was not the amount for which tn,
lands were sold to the city of Indianapolis
sos, 500?
- Was not the discount on the price fo
which the lands we're purchased $4,000?
II. Has any one OF the plaintiffs received
any part of this balance-if so, how much,
10. Have the defendants, or any of then
received any part of this balance, and if so
how much?
l6. Were any expenses incurred in max
ing sale of these lands to the city of Indian.
apolis, and if so, how much, and to whom
were they paid?"
THE FIGURES IN THE RING.
This instrument was flied in the supero
court yesterday by Messrs. Mcdonald ant
,, Butler, attorneys for the plaintiffs. Sine
the Sentinel had struggled hard at the tim'
: TO prevent the consumation of what it sin
cerely believed to be q downright swindle, i
would be expected by the public to follow
up every clue presented, for purposes of for
tifcation. Reporters were therefore place,
on the war path as soon as the knowledge o
: the movement was obtained, charged I,
J, "work up the case" and place facts be
| e H. T<>S nj Ia