The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-06-27
THE RESULT OF A SPREE
JOSEPH sCHIssLER SUES LoRENZ
LEPPERT AND BARTENDER.
Two Stories About N Roll of Money
Music Teachers Divorce Suit
Other Court Cases.

Judge Allen, Of the Circuit Court, yes
terday heard an interesting case in which
an attempt is being made TO recover money
alleged TO have been stolen in saloon.
Joseph Schissler is the plaintiff and Lorenz
Leppert and Merrill Nysewander his SON
in-law are defendants. The amount sought
TO be recovered is the difference between
sl25 and money spent at the saloon, paid
out in a fine and returned by the saloon
keeper.
Schisser says that on Friday, Nov. 2,
1900 he went to Lepperts saloon on East
Washington street. The day before he had
settled a business transaction for 500 and
had Sl25 of the money on his person. On
the date mentioned. he says, he started
10 buy some clothing and stopped in Lep-
pert's saloon. He bought a drink and took
out his roll of bills He paid for the liquor
with a ten-dollar bill and put the rest of
the money in his pocket keeping what was
left of the ten for change. He says that
later he went into the backyard of the
saloon and while there Lepert and Nyse-
wander robbed him of his money. He AYERS
that he followed the men back into the
saloon and demanded his money. Leppert
finally gave him 81, he says. The next day
he went back to the saloon and again de-
manded his money and the bartender gave
him 81. That night, he says Lepert gave
him another dollar. Sunday morning
Schissler went back to the saloon TO de-
mand his money and spent the day there
drinking. He says he does not remember
all that happened that day, but when he
came TO himself he was in the police sta
ton. The next morning he was fined for
being drunk and the fine paid by some
unknown person without an explanation.
Monday was spent at Leperts saloon, and
Tuesday election day. Leppert gave him
81. Wednesday he became sober and went
home. having received in all from Leppert
According 10 Schsslers statement Lep-
pert finally told him that his purse had
been found and that there but Sol in IT..
He says Leppert gave him SIS, retaining
the rest for the fine he had paid and TO
square his account at the bar.
The defense is that Schissler went into
the saloon and the keeper refused 70 sell
him liquor because he was intoxica ted.
The defendants say they found Schissler in
their backyard intoxicated and helpless.
They also found his purse, but did not give
the money TO him on account of his condi-
ton. They say the money was counted
over before Schssler in the presence of
the defendants and Leppert's wife, and
that it was agreed the money should be
placed in the safe until he became sober.
Leppert says he has $40 which he offered
TO Schissler in settlement, having already
paid him So in cash. fine of 81 and took
out 81 or 80 on an account Schissler had
run at his saloon while on his spree. He
says SO was left after all expenses and in
debtedness was deducted, and that Schiss-
Ter refused 10 accept this when IL was ten
dered him. Schissler recently brought suit
/, in q Justices court for the difference be-
tween $125 and his expenses and recovered
a judgment for SO. He then appealed to
the Circuit Court