The Roswell daily record. [volume] (Roswell, N.M.) 1903-current, 1906-10-30

- ~A@Aa Mi Il
funds by procuring the Treasurer of
the Common wealth of Pennsylvania
to deposit in the Enterprise Nation
al Bank large sums of money belong
ing to the Commonwealth of Penn
sylyania, is without foundation in
fact, ands the plaintiff in his case
has no reaso whatever for making
such statement. The same is wholly
untrue. and afaant is advised that
the same IS impertinent to any issue
in this case. Afiant AYERS that for
many ear prior to the organization
of the defendant company, the En-
terprise National Bank had been a
large depository of funds of the Com
~monwealth OF Pennsylvania. He was
not a director, stockholder or de-
positor in said bank. had no relations
Herewith. had no part whatever in
securing the deposit of the said state
funds and never. directly or Indirect
ly had any connection whatever or
anything to do with the depositing
of state funds in said bank. The al
legation that said Clark, as cashier
acting for the benefit of the said
Development Company and MS co
partners. its promoters. from time to
time -frauduIently discounted the
promissory notes made by said De
veIopmant Company, without knowI-
edge or authority of the Board Of
Directors of the said Enterprise Ma
tional Bank, is untrue, 1t is untrue
that affiant and other stockholders of
said company We're co-partners of
said Clark. Or of eacn other. It is
untrue that the notes of said comp
any were discounted in said bank Big
said Clark with or without the knowl
edge or authority Of the Board OF Di-
r%ectors, and it is untrue that said
Clark took proceeds of notes out of
the funds of said bank and applied
the same to the use of the develop
ment company. None of the notes
sued on i'll this case were renewals
of any notes that had at any time
been discounted in said bank. nor
were any of the notes herein sues
on ever discounted in aid bank.
The allegation contained in said
paragraph that it was discovered
about October Is, 1905. that said
Clark had fraudulentIy abstracted
and embezzled a large portion of the
concealed the same by false entries
and ~manipulations of are
matters concerning which the affiant
has no information more than the
general public, and if true, are not
material to this case
The allegations that afterward the
notes sued on were found in aid En-
terprise National Bank, and togeth-
er with assets of said bank, entered
into possession of h plaintiff. may
be true so far that said notes were
found in the bank building and are
now in the possession of the plain
tiff, but if thereby is meant that the
same were the property OF the said
bank and assets Of the bank. the al
legation is denied. Afiant AYERS tina
the notes sued on were in the posses
ion of said Clark at the time of his
death, not as cashier of the Enter
prise National Bank, but as treasur
er of the Development Company, Oh
as custodian of said notes. and the
same had not been discounted by sale
bank, and do not appear upon the
books OF h bank, and are not ana
~neve" were assets or property of the
bank.
AS to all the notes and items il
paragraphs ; OBJ. tc), Id. 4 1ap
j OBJ, (cJ, Ia. (e), If, (g), Oh, III.
%, Tx, G),im), (n), (o), affant says
that none of said notes ever became
the property Oh an asset of the said
bank, and no money was ever advan
ced by said bank thereon, but the
same at the time of the death OF
said Clark, were in his custody and
control as the treasurer of the defen.
dant company. or as the custodian OF
such notes, and being in the building
occupied by said bank was merely a
coincidence from his employment
therein as cashier thereof.
AS to the two drafts set forth il
paragraphs ) (a), and 5 OBJ, for ST.
500 and $4,000, respectively, afianr
says that said Clark obtained these
drafts and deposited them for coIlec
ton in the Enterprise National Bank
receiving proceeds thereof, and aft
er the death of said Clark, this aft
ant being notified that said drafts
were in said bank, on the sixth day Of
November, 1905, through his attor