Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-08-30
MINING CDNPAN SUES
An Echo of the Lillooet Failure
Heard In Action Begun In
Federal Court
BANK is MADE DEFENDANT
Hawkeye Gold Dredging Company
Asks State Bank of Iowa Falls to
Pay Sum of s1e,ooo-Much interest
Taken in the Case in Central Iowa
Special to Times Republican.

Special to Times Republican,
Eldora, Aug. 30.-The amended and
substituted petition of the Hawkeye
Goldid Mining Company VS.. the State
Bank of Iowa Falls, has been filed in
the federal court a Cedar
Rapids. The case has intimate
connection with the failure of the
Iowa illooet Mining Company in
which SO many people in this section
of the state lost money, and whose
tangled affairs has been the subject OF
much newspaper notoriety.
The amended and substituted Pc
tition alleges that the Hawkeye
Gold Dredging Company is corpora
ton organized and existing under and
by virtue of the laws of British Colum-
bia. That there was deposited for and
in behalf of this company with the
State Bank of Iowa Falls, the sum Of
$50, 1890. That the plaintiff made de-
mand on the bank for the sum of $751;
077.65, which demand was refused by
said defendant "for want of funds"
That there is now due and owing from
the defendant to the PLAINTIFF the sum
of $8S,9S9.93. together with interest
thereon at the rate of per cent;
wherefore judgment is asked for tn,
sum of s6s,9S9.s3.
The defendant has filed lengthy an
swer in this case in which it is stated
that the check mentioned in the petit
ton Of the plaintiff was presented for
payment and demand refused. But It
denies being indebted to the plaintiff
in the sum of $68,9S9.S3, or in any 9TH
err sum whatever.
Further answering the defendant
states that in April, 1904, the plaintiff
general agents, B. B. Bliss and III. c..
Miller, who had full control of the fin
ances. The bank treated the account
of the gold dredging company as the
joint and combined account Of the COM
pany itself and of Messrs. Bliss and
Miller, because 1t was known they hal
pecuniary interest in the affairs of the
company. Miller and Bliss were al
lowed to make deposits and to draw
checks for such purposes and in such
amounts as they determined.
Further answering the defendant
states that on or about Aug. 20, 1904.
there was placed to the credit Of the
company on the books Of the bank, a
certain credit of $16,O77.65, which cred
1t did not in truth. represent an actual
deposit of cash or its equivalent, but
was made at the oral request Of said
Bliss and Miller on their oral promise
and undertaking that IL the said credit
was so made, the said defendant bank
would have the right to charge. the
same off by cashing and presenting for
payment certain check for the said
amount of $16,077.65 which the said
Bliss and the said Miller agreed. for
and in behalf of the plaintiff and for
and in behalf of. themselves individual
lily and jointly to execute and that
thereupon and in reliance upon said
undertaking and in furtherance there
of. said Miller and Bliss executed the
check Afterwards, and beforesthe in
stitution Of this suit, the said credit
was charged off and the said check
cancelled. The defendants aver that
the account Of the company was neitl-
er enhanced or diminished by this
transaction, which was merely mat
ter of convenience and bookkeeping.
The defendant further answering
states that the plaintiff and the said
Bliss and Miller deposited other iteids
than that above mentioned, to the
amount Of s66,O42.25 which sum has,
at time prior to the institution of
this suit, been fully paid out, all OF
which checks and orders are now m
the possession of the plaintiff except
a check for $13.13O.O7 which check the
plaintiff admits was issued against said
account Defendant further states
that there is no sum whatever due on
account of the said deposit, or on ac-
count of the said account kept as afore-
said, to the said plaintiff or to the sa.i
Miller or Bliss, and the defendant de-
MES being indebted in any sum what
ever to the plaintiff in this cause. or