The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-08-23
COMPLAINT FILED
But 1t Tells a Story of Unusual Rapac-
ity on the Part of q Money Shark.
Hey Beckner Released and the Charge De-
clsred a M~istake-Strsnge Story-El-
mira Billiards. Arrest an Outrage.

Probably the most unique complaint
ever filed in q court Of this county was
filed in Justice Johnston's court yesterday
afternoon by a well-known attorney of this
city. The complaints grew out of the at
tempted extortions of Charles G.. Ludwig.
the money shark" who q few weeks ago
begged so piteously for mercy from Judge
Baker and was granted it. The plaintiff
in the suit filed yesterday was Mary Van
Cleave. The complaint was Endorsed upon
the back. Compliant for damages for
frauds, misrepresentation and expenses
incident thereto and resulting therefrom."
1t was truly q legal gem and worthy pres
ervstion for delectatIon of coming gen.
creations. The complaint was even re-
fused by q Justice of the peace. after
which it was taken to JOhnston's
court and flied there. The chIrogrsphy
prevents anything like an exact repro
duction of the article. but It's substance Is
given. 1t presents the whole of the evil
dence to the court and renders Judgment
for the plaintiff before the suit has been
filed. 1t appears from the complaint that
the plaintiff had borrowed 80. 20 from Lud-
wig, the money shark" and, as q matter
of course. when she objected to the most
oxorbltant charge of interest ever recorded.
she found il necessary to consult an at
tOrney. On the loan of &c. 20. the complaint
charges. Ludwig claimed interest to the
amount of 81 per week, and held possession
of a sewing machine for the debt and the
outrageous sum charged as interest. This
claim IS disputed by the plaintiff. and she
asks that court compel the return of the
sewing machine to her. The complaints
contains none of the usual and unnecessary
formal sverments of q com plant in re-
plevin. nor was any replevin bond rendered
TO indemnify the officers from damages in
case the property should be returned, aud
the plaintiff has no just cause of action.
The plaintiff did pretend to make a ten
der OF the amount borrowed, as q condition
precedent to the order tor the retsking of
the property. The tender was made in the
way of a credit for the amount borrowed,
on the Judgment which was sought in DAM
ages. The plaintiff sought to recover dam
ages In the sum of S25 and though 10 was
alleged in the com plant that the money
borrowed WAS paid into court to liouidate
the indebtedness. Q further perusal of the
unique document disclosed the fact that
the cash was not actually paid in, the only
payment or tender being an allegation in
the complaint that the plaintiff acknowl-
edged payment of that amount on the judg-
ment which she sought In damages.
Several weeks sgo Ludwig was before
the United States Court for q violation of
the postal laws, In sending o dun through
the mails on q postal card. The dun was
sent to q woman. who, from force of neces-
sity. had become involved in the tolls of
the money shark. and. coming to the knowl-
edge of the pOst0filce authorities. he was
arrested and convicted. Judge Baker, In
addition to a fine. imposed q Jail sentence.
When the sentence was announced LRd-
his knees begged piteously for mercy. say
ing thar his wife and family were depend
ent upon his daily earnings for their sup
port. Judge Baker was touched by the
plea. and RENTED the Jail sentence and
Ludwig returned TO his business OF exror-
tim. 'A