The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-09-12

cannot find $97, 900 in judgments unpaid on IN"
No one can. But that is immaterial, for this
reason: we should only count lost judgment
once-I simply say to you that, if it takes the
SOL 600 on MA. added to the unpaid amount on
IN" to make the $97, 600 of loss claimed by
Ketcham. then it is plain that the Sturm
judgment is counted twice; but / don't care
whether 1t is counted once or twice, so get the
exact facts. l want to show you also exhibit
TIA" headed worthless notes." ! want to
show you that the very same So, 600 of loss on
the Miller real estate, which have shown you
is already charged on another exhibit is charged
up second time on this. Here is Mr.. Ketcham's
addendum put down on exhibit TIA" add I'M
paid part of Carey Miller note, So. 000.n That is
the way he makes his computations He ad-
mitted to You that that is the S., 0O0 of loss on
the real estate taken from Carey Miller's mother.
| now show you that that same $1,000 is put
down again on exhibit "P." Look at these words
on exhibit 'P:" Real estate loss SIT, 796. AZ
Mr. ketcham admits and the proof is unds-
puted on the subject, that that $4,000 includes
the total loss all the real estate that the bank
held at any time between 1877 and 1884. Now,
that So, 600 loss Miller real estate is in twice:
once in the SIT, 900 on exhibit "P, and again on
exhibit ia" Now the total loss on all the
judgments then existing is $31 0G2 SO.
We have now found the loss on notes and
bills, and miscellaneous bonds. and on what
was then IN judgment. This only leaves one
exhibit to examine, to what has been charged
to profit and loss in either notes, bills or judg-
ments then existing, and which are not included
in the other exhibits / have gone carefully
through this exhibit ''P, and find the total Of
such losses on that exhibit to be So, 43l.53. We
are now prepared, by plaintiffs own evidence, to
measure just how much the bank lost entirely
on the 81, 086 35G 46 of notes and judgments and
bills.
First-Loss notes. $37, 1872. SO
Second-Loss on three judgments..- 1,O62.99
Third-Amount charged to profit andloss 81, 431,o3
Total loss on all notes, bills and judg-...
ments. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 81 &c, 327.4O
Now, if you will subtract that from the 81 ,066
1856 49, it leaves good notes, bills and judgments,
then owned by the bank. to the amount Of $780,
VIZ W. That is another piece of rotten timber IN
this bank--$0G0, 02906 of good notes, bills
and judgments on their own evidence
Bu5 in addition to that. plaintiffs
have here produced exhibit 'iS," in which they
admit that the bank has recovered out of mat
ters charged off to profit and loss before the SALE
or since the sale, $3.50 That is credit have
not taken into account heretofore Now, we are
prepared to find out what the actual assets of
that bank were on that day, we know their
value to be:
Frst-Cash, after deduc ing all the 5
per cent. loss, and the shortage in
cash balance left 1913, $4,000
Second-United States bonds, $780,
600 worth to-day SOO,OOC.OO
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. assets worth. 120. 743.OO
Fourth-Good notes and judg ments.- $50, 029.O
Fifth-Credits from profit and loss
count Observation-Disclosures. 29,os464
Total g., 428, 1870
Now, what the established bust
of that bank worth? There is
contradictory evidence on the
point that if the bank was worth
that amount of assets, its good viii
and business would be worth from
$4,000 to 100000; counting 1T
at the lowest. Observation-Disclosures. $50, coo. 90
Add this TO the actual assets and we
have a total value of.-....-.-.-. So, AIS, 1920
What did this bank then owea
1t owed for its circulation .---.... $3.50 10000
To depostors of all classes. S73 255. "a
To other banks. Observation-Disclosures. 290925 90
Making it's total liabilities. GA 100 "a
Which, subtracted from its assets. 81, 1857, 1897
Leave Observation-Disclosures. So 1872 Alb