Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-02-08

| the pass-boos of said treasurer which had
been previously furnished him by the de-
fendant as receipt book against il, to show
the deposits made by said treasurer therein.
Complainant further represents and says that
it is not lawful for any bank or public de-
| pository to pay ary chsck drawn against the
public moneys Of the treasury of Tennessee
deposited therein, unless each check shall be
signed BY the treasurer and countersigned by
the comptroller of Tennessee and payable to
the payee of the comptroller's warrant ION
the treasurer) upon which checks shall be
based, of which the defendant was informed
| and advised. In order to ascertain the
| amount in the defendant bank or any other
| depository at any time, it was necessary only
to compare the pass-book or the receipt
therein, with the checks Tor records thereof
drawn as above provided against such depos-
itory; and this the defendant we'll knew
when 1t charged itself with S57, $50 as stated
hereinbefore.
Complainant is advised and informed that
this was done by said committee and the
| balance found to be S75,877 SO, as stated in
said report The committee relied upon
| said pass-book and the entries made by the
defendant therein. The fact that such an
investigation was proposed and contemplated
was notorious, and complainant charges tn at
the defendant made said entries of April II,
1882, knowing that said committee would,
and intending that it should rely thereon;
and complainant charges that said commit
tee dil rely upon and believe and act upon
the same. No check drawn and coun-
tersigned as required by law was ever drawn
against said account; nor was there in the
office any record or other writing showing
that such, or, in fact. any other check had
been drawn against the same
Complainant would now show that on the
9th day OF May, 1882, a check on the defend
ant for s57 $50 was drawn by said Polk as
treasurer, against the public moneys of Ten
nessee, payable to himself individually,
which was indorsed by him and delivered to
the defendant. 1t was not countersigned by
the comptroller, neither did it purport to be
based upon any warrant drawn by him.
Complainant charges that it was agreed
between said Polk and the defendant, when
the bank agreed to acknowledge that 1t had
on deposit the $50, $50 referred to, and when
it charged itself with the same, that a check
should be given by said Polk for that sum,
and charged up to him as soon as it could be
done without exposing the transaction, and,
in pursuance thereof, the Sheck was wrong
fully charged to the account OF the treasurer
OF Tennessee by the defendant, who is now
claiming credit for the same.
The check, as complainant is informed,
said agreement and understanding, on the 9th
day Of May, 1882, but BY agreement between
the said Polk and the defendant, it was not
then charged up, but purposely and design
eddy held up by the defendant until the 23a
day of May, 1S82-the next day after the
General Assembly aGjourned-when it was
marked paid, Cancelled and charged up to
the treasurer of Tennessee.
Complainant charges that said check was
held as stated by the defendant and said
Polk, in order to have it continue to appear
in the event of further investigation at said
session that the sum stated TO be held by the
defendant for the treasurer of Tennessee was
truly on deposit in sasd bank; and complain.
ant charges that said entry in said pass
book, and the agreement preceding ii, and
the holding up of said check were made and
done by the defendant 10 protect said Polk
from exposure, and to induce said commit
tee and the General Assembly of Tennessee
to believe that the said sum was then held
by the defendant on deposit to the credit of
the treasurer of Tennessee; and complainant
charges that it did have that effect, to the
great injury and loss of the State.
The premises considered, complainant
asks leave to file this bill in this honorable
court (where rIch matters are properly cog
nizable) against the said Merchants National
Bank as defendant hereto; that process for
that purpose issue, returnable to rule day
on the first Monday in March next; that the
defendant answer the allegations hereof, but
not under oath, which is waived; that it also
specially answer whether any deposit ticket
was made and filed April Is, 1882, or April
II. 1882, or any time thereafter, for said
$751;, $50, and if SO, when; and let it exhibit
copy of the same.
Complainant prays also for the sum of
S57 $50, with interest thereon since April 10,
1882, and to recover the same complainant
brings this bill by the attorney-general for
| the State.
Complainant plays for general and special
relief.
BENZ. J. LEA, Attorney General.
VERTREEs & VERrREEs, Solicitors,