The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-08-13
brazenly smiled as he testified that one
batch of stuff that he had sold had lain in
the cellar of @ Chicago dealer for twelve

brazenly smiled as he testified that one
batch of stuff that he had sold had lain In
the cellar Of Chicago dealer for twelve
years.
swoRE RAY FORGED ORDERS.
The school trustees implicated. being
placed upon the witness stand, openly re-
pudiated their orders and swore that they
had never signed them. thus laying Ray
open to the implication of forgery. They
had never kept any record of warrants is-
sued, and had no idea of what amounts
were outstanding. 1t was shown that Ray
had assisted them in juggling their annual
reports to conceal the frauds. and some OF
the reports being produced, were shown to
have been made out In Rays handwriting.
The first case that was tried, beinx test
case, was hotly contested and lasted sew
eral days The trial was before Judge
Hackney, now q candidate for Supreme
Judge on the Democratic ticket. and the
result was q verdict for the defendant.
Since that time about $4,000 worth of this
paper has been litigated, and IN each case
the verdict was the same. The paper was
void and uncollectable.
The Journal emissary, In rummaginR
among the matters of record in the court
house, examined several complaints and
answers. One complaint that Will serve
as sn example WAS that OF j. +. kennedy
q Co. VS.. Union School Township. The
complaint in effect alleges that the defend
ant, by Its trustee, Cyrus w. Montgomery,
who signed his name c. w. Montgomery,
executed the note of the township; that
the note was due and wholly unpaid; that
payment had been repeatedly demanded;
that the amount of principal and interest
unpaid was $3.50; that the supplies named
in the note for, which it purports to have
been given were delivered, accepted, used,
and are still in use. and that the supplies
were suitable, reasonably necessary and
worth the sum named.
The defendants answer to this complaint
was a denial of each and every material al
legation, furthermore that the note In suit
was executed without any consideration
whatever. The answers set up In the first
suits tried. In addition to the items just
mentioned, alleged conspiracy and COM
plicity between Ray and the trustees to de-
fraud. These first cases being tried and
disposed of, it was deemed sufficient in the
furnished, or being furnished, were un-
necessary. and upon these grounds the
claims were defeated.
THE JUDGES FINDING.
The brand of villainy and knavery is Of
fcally stamped upon Ray and his confeder-
ntes by Judge Hackney In his special find
ing Of the facts. which appears of record In
one case, where three of these notes were
1. June 1, 1890. the then trustee, defendant,
bought Of one George NJ. Ray, certain maps,
three globes, seven Spencerian writing charts
and one set of blanks for ordinary school pur
poses OF the aggregate value Of $3.50, and on
said day, in consideration Of said purchase, the
said trustee executed to George NJ. Ray the OBJ
legation of said defendant for $575, payable
June Is, 1891. with per cent interest from
date. with attorneys fees, payable at the First
National Bank of Shelbyville; that said George
NJ. Ray before the maturity of said note. trans
ferred the same to the plaintiffs by indOrsement
in bank.
2. That according to the terms of said note
there Is now due of principal and interest
$664.60, and OF attorneys fees the sum of s..
3. The court finds that May q, 1890, the de-
fendant purchased of Ray seven reading charts
worth $l1, twenty-five boxes OF dustless crayon
worth $40. and two dozen erasers worth SO, and
that on said day said trustee executed To Ray
the obligation Of the township for $3.50, with
interest, etc.
4. Amount due on this note, $291.2O.
5. The court finds that, on May 10, 1890, the
trustee bought of Ray seven sets of cube root,
seven test maps and seven arithmetical studies,