The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-01-26
MIR. MILLIKEN'S DRAFT
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN MIR. HAw-
KINs AND A NEW CASTLE BANK.
Ex-Secretary of Republican State
Committee Held the Draft
Over Year.

Yesterday Receiver Hawkins, of the In
dianapoiis National Bank, filed his reply TO
the answer of the Citizens Bank, of New
Castle, in a suit instituted by him last year
to recover 81, 1928. the amount that IL is al
legged the account of the Citizens Bank was
overdrawn at the time Of the failure of the
indianapolis National Bank. The complaint
In the suit shows that for a long time the
Indianapolis bank was the local correspond
ent of the New Castle bank, and that at
times the account of the latter was over
drawn, on which overdraft 1t was agreed
the New Castle bank should pay interest.
At the time of the failure of the bank the
overdraft amounted to $685. according to
the books of the Indianapolis bank. 1t was
this amount that was sought to be recov-
cred.
In its answer the New Castle bank showed
that July %. 1898, the second day before the
indianapolis bank failed, 1t received as
deposit draft of 5000 drawn by the In
dianapolis National Bank on the Chase Ma
tional Bank, Of New York. and that the
draft was forwarded for collection, but was
returned protested on account of the failure.
This amount, the answer says. is due the
New ~astie bank. and it asks Judgment for
the difference between the two accounts.
Yesterday the reply to this answer was
filed. IL sets out the fact that June 2,
1882 the Indianapolis bank issued draft
on it's New York correspondent to the order
Of Frank NJ. Milliken, secretary" for
which II received check signed by the
treasurer OF the Republican state commit
tee; that this draft was not forwarded for
collection, but, after being held more than
a year, was deposited with the New Castle
bank to the credit Of Mr.. Miliken's in
dividusl account; that at all times between
the time of issuing the draft and the day of
the failure OF the bank there was suffi-
cient amount OF money on deposit in the
Chase National Bank to have paid this
draft IL 1t had been presented, and that the
placing of this! draft in the New Castle
bank was simply as a deposit, and accord
ing to banking usage and custom was cred
tied TO the account of Mr. Milliken, sub
which credit was conditional. and should
have been charged off after the draft was
refused, thus throwing the loss upon Mr..
Milliken. and not upon IL, the New Jew, Castle
bank indebted to the Indianapolis bank in
the sum of 81, 1928 and Mr.. Milliken indebted
to the New Castle bank 10 the sum OF
s.. 600. such is the theory of the plaintiff.
The New Castle bank takes the position
that, II being the correspondent of the In
dianapolis bank, ii had the right to i'm
medlately charge the account of the Indian
apolis bank with the amount when the
draft was deposited, thus offsetting the
former overdraft and stopping the payment
Of interest upon X.
The draft in question has caused some
comment Mr. Miiliken said yesterday that
II was money that was paid to hin by
the committee in return of money advanced
by him in the early part of the campaign.
He says that during the entire campaign
he advanced several times this amount, ana
that this draft was simply one of several
that was paid to him at different times to
reimburse him. 1t was held by him simply
because he did not have occasion to use 1t,
he says, and failed to deposit because of
that fact.
Mr.. Gowdy was seen last night and asked
what he knew about this draft.
II cannot remember anything at all about
il now" he said.
us it not true that YOU have to sign all
such orders drawn on the treasurer of the
committee?"
Yes. But just now / cannot recall this
particular draft. Possibly if could have
talk with Mr. Milliken concerning it might
be able to refresh my memory