The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1896-01-28
A Statements of An Ole. Case.
the Editor of the State Journal:

To the Editor of the State Journal:
Absence from the city of both J. n,
StrickIer and L. Ii. Pounds has precluded
an earlier reply to certain articles which
appeared in some of the Topeka papers
during the latter part of November, 1895,
referring to the case of Bixler VS.. Han
son, in which article the statements made
as TO j. N Stricken. and the firm of
Strickler, Daniels s. Pounds, were false
and entirely misleading. Your reporter
was undoubtedly misinformed, and know
ing that it is the policy of your paper 10
make amends wherein you have been
mislead as to the facts. we request that
you publish the following statement:
In 1883 the Investment Banking COM
pany made d loan to Mr.. and Mrs. Han
son, secured by mortgage on their lot
and house on Eighth avenue This loan
was made for five years Nearly three
years before it was due Mrs. Hanson de-
sired to pay it of, and upon making such
request of the Investment Banking COM
pany was informed that the loan was
held in the east and no positive auswer
could be given her until
the eastern holder of the loan
could be heard from. She was
anxious to have her money draw inter
est, as she was paying interest on the loan,
and asked what could be done in this re-
spect. The officers of the Investment
Banking company informed her that she
could deposit the money and receive the
same rate of interest that she was pay
ing on the loan, but to be perfectly free
to do as she thought best. She left the
office but returned again with a friend,
and both made further inquiries and
stated to Mrs. Hanson. She then
decided to leave the money with
the Investment Banking company under
these conditions, that if the loan on her
property could be paid off at once, the
money to be SO applied, if not, it was TO
be left as a loan to the Investments Bank
ing company until the loan on her prop
erty became due. The Investment
Banking company wrote east and en-
deavored to get the party holding the
loan on her property to take the money
and release the mortgage, the loan not
being due; this was refused. Several
years afterwa the loan on the Hansen
property fell due, but because of the
great depression in real estate the Inve. (.
nent Banking company could not pay
Mrs. Hanson the money she had loaned
it.
The interest on this money had been
paid, and the Investment Banking com.
pany gave her its note, secured by co..
lateral of about three times the amount
some of which her attorney, who acted
for her. said he could collect whenever
needed.
No settlement has ever been made be-
tween Mrs. Hanson aud the Investment
Banking company She still holds its
note and collateral, or the money collect
ed on same; no statement has ever been
made in this particular
The Investment Banking company was
regularly organized loan company and
acted in this case as all such companies
did under similar circumstances Neither
J. n. Stricken, Individually, nor Strick
Ter, Daniels & Pounds ever received a
dollar of this money, as your report of
the case would seem to indicate, It
should be borne in mind that neither the
Investment Banking company nor the
firm of Stricken, Daniels & Pounds, nor
any member thereof, was party to the
suit that was tried, and SO of course
full showing as to their position could
not be made. Respectfully,
J. n. STROLLER,
L. Il. POUNDS,
T