The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-01-17
MONEY SHARKS AGAIN
More Of Their ExtOrtiOns i'm Hard
Times Exposed in Court.
{. w. DePauw Sued on Notes Aggregat-
ing $4,000 by the Bank OF Commerce
Court Miscellany.

IT IS an I'll wind that blows no one good
and these Democratic times are proving a
veritable bonanza for the money sharks who
live like autocrats upon the blood money
they extort from their hapless victims. A
few days ago one of these sharks was
made defendant in a suit by a woman
seeking relief from his never-ending de-
mands for money accompanied by threats
to foreclose a chattel mortgage upon house
hold goods If the demands were not met.
This same money shark. Lewis Baum, with
headquarters at the corner of Ohio and
East streets. is now suing one of his victims
because she has at last refused to submit
further to his charges Of usurious interest
upon small loan. The victim is Sarah A.
Stout. who resides at No 100 Hosbrook
street. The suit was originally filed before
Justice Johnson. but was sent to Justice
Habich's court upon a change OF venue.
Harmon Everett has been retained to de-
fend against the exorbitant claim OF the
money shark He will file his answer to
the complaint this morning.
The story of the transactions leading up
60 the suit is as follows: In June of 1892
Mrs. Stout borrowed $50 from Baum and
gave as evidence OF the indebtedness her
note for $3.50 due in thirty days, the $500
over and above the amount borrowed being
$500
maturity of the note, Mrs. Stout being un-
able TO pay it off, Baum agreed to permit
her to pay il at the rate of $3.50 per month
and in pursuance to this agreement she paid
him $685. Afterward Baum claimed that
these payments were simply made as inter-
est payments and did not reduce the
amount OF the principal. On Feb. 4, 1893, she
borrowed additional SO from Baum for
thirty days for which she paid s. inter-
est. Baum then required Mrs. Stout TO
execute new note and mortgage for the
amount of both the original and the second
loan. making total of $780, giving no
credit for the SS6 paid on the original note.
After the maturity OF the last note Baum
agreed that the amount claimed by him
should be paid in monthly installments of Sc
and aS bi Of ss s rsf AIRS
action with Baum Mrs. Stout has paid him,
as principal and interest, $1,000. This is
upon q total loan of SO, part of which
amount has not yet been running one year.
Baum has now sued to collect the $50
Secure it. Claiming that the full amount of
that note is due him in addition to the
s130.S0 which she has already paid. Her at,
torpey, Mr.. Everett, says that they will
show in the evidence that before Mrs. Stout
signed the note and mortgage for $S6 and
while the negotiations were pending, Baum
went to the house of Mrs. Stout, during her
absence with bottle of wine and a pocket
full Of cigars. He met son of Mrs Stout
and told him that on his way to the house
q friend had given him the wine, which he
offered to Mr. Stout, at the same time
a
torney says they. will show that Baum at
this time asked the son to use his influence
TO induce his mother to sign the second note
The indianapolis Mortgage Loan Com
pany IS a corporation organized for the
purpose of loaning money on chattel Sc
curity Its ways are dark and mysterious.
and no information is given out by Them
as to their method of conducting their
have given the question Of ways and means
TO legally, collect illegal interest much
study, and have arrived at some plan by
which they secure negotiable paper which
Is at once negotiated and thus shuts off
the defense OF the victim that usurious
interest is charged. There is now pending
before Judge Harper a case against the
Indianapolis Mortgage Loan Company in
which India Hendricks seeks to be- released
from the tolls OF the corporate money
shark. The suit was filed on Nov. q, 1893
and yesterday an amended complaint was
Hunter Mnlikin, S. Mackey. Duncan r.
McNaught and the Indianapolis Mortgage
Loan Company. Mackey and Mcknight
are nonresidents and transact all business
through their agents Hunter Millikin acts
as the agent for Mcknight and the loan
company as agent for Mackey. Frank
Archer is the general manager and princi-
pal stakeholder in the loan company. The
PLAINTIFF In her amended complaint alleges
that on Jan. 5. 1888, she borrowed S35 from
the loan company for thirty days, and
for 81 payable in thirty days The COM
plant AYERS that $3.50 of the additional
amount was interest upon the amount
the note and mortgage were made to S.
Mackey. AT the expiration Of the month,
sne abe w 6snS ve unable a6 to- pay the
other month for a consideration of $3.50
These extensions were continued till Sept.
Q, 1888 when the plaintiff again offered the
usual fee for an extension of another
thirty days: The loan company refused to
extend 9TH the time, telling her that S: Mackey
She alleges that she was then taken to
Hunter Millilcn, who agreed to take up
a Ia nVa6
alton OF the plaintiffs executing her note
for 81 to Duncan r. Mcknight and the
payment lent. Of $50 for the thirty days, when
This the plaintiff did. She AYERS that at
the time OF the transaction with Miliikin
Mnhkin. which she Immediately indorsed
TO the loan company at the instance of the
loan company. When the note TO M III Line
became due she again asked for an ex-
tension; which was refused and Millikin
81. payment of the whole amount
The plaintiff. alleges that the pretense.
on the part OF the loan company, that s.
Mackey was dead was a sham to induce
her TO execute the note and mortgage to
MSS1Na1ght, and was in pursuance OF
Millikin, McNaught and the loan Company
70 prevent her from securing credit for
prevent her defending on the last note to
the extent OF the usurious interest paid
She AYERS that there was an agreement
over the legal interest which had been re-
ceived or which might be exacted from her
She also AYERS that both Millixin and Nc
Naught had full knowledge OF the usurious
interest which had been eXacted by the
loan company from her. both by direct in
formation and from knowledge they al
ready had Of the methods pursued by
Mackey ana the loan company IN similar
transactions had between them and
Mackey and the loan company upon former
occasions for the purpose of cutting off
derenseS based upon claims OF usllrv The
plaintiff has paid SOS upon the Mackey note
and $3.50 upon the Mcknight note and
paid into court so, and demands the salts
faction or the mortgage and surrender of
ner note. she AYERS that the defendants
conceal among themselves as nearly as it
Is possible for them TO do so their methods
OF business. In addition TO the satisfac-
uon or the mortgage and surrender OF her
note she asks Judgment In damages a1ainSt
the Defendants for SO and S25 for attorneys
lees. Fesler x Stevenson and j. L. Nc
tiff ~ '"e PlalA