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

/
Clark, endorser thereof, nor has any
| part of said note been paid by any
one on their behalf The said uefen-
dant paid the interest due and acru-
ing on said note to April 1st, 1905.
the defendant is also indebted to
the plaintiff in the sum of ten thous-
and two hundred sixty-five dollars
and eighty-seven cents, ($10,265.SO
with interest thereon from October
1st, 1904, upon a certain promisory
note dated at Pittsburg, Pennsylva-
mia, October 1st, 1904, and signed by
said defendant Andrews, a true copy
of which note is hereto attached and
| made a part hereof marked Exhibit
b. whereby said defendant promised
to pay to the order of T Lee Clark
six months after the date thereof, the
sum of $10,265.S7 at the Enterprise
National Bank of Allegheny, Penn
sylvania, without defalcation for val
ue received with interest thereon.
Said note was duly endorsed by said
L
National Bank of Allegheny, which
purchased said note for a valuable
consideration before the maturity
thereof; and the proceeds thereof
| were paid to said defendant. Said
note was not paid by said defendant
at its maturity nor had said defend
ant any funds on deposit in said bank
for the payment thereof, nor was
| the same paid by the said T Lee
Clark, endorser thereon, nor has any
part of said note or the interest accru
| ing thereon since been paid by any
one on their behalf.
The defendant is also indebted to
| the plaintiff in the sum of 50, 500 with
| interest thereon from November 3rd
1905, upon a certain promisory note
| made and signed by defendant dated
at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, July 3rd,
| 1905, a true copy of which note is
hereto attached and made a part
hereof marked Exhibit c. whereby
said defendant promised to pay to
the order of Francis J. Torrance four
| months after the date thereof, the
sum of $4,000 at the Enterprise Ma
/ tional Bank of Allegheny, without
defalcation for value received; and
said note was duly endorsed by said
Francis J. Torrance and delivered to
| the said Enterprise National Bank
of Allegheny, which discounted the
said note for valuable considera-
| ton in the usual course of business
| before the maturity thereof. The said
note was not paid by the said defen-
| dant at the maturity thereof nor by
| the said Torrance, the endorser there
on. although payment thereof was
duly demanded; but said note was.
on the 3rd day of November, 1905
| duly protested for non-payment, nor
has any part of said note been since
| paid by any one on their behalf; and
| the plaintiff claims to recover the
| sum of $1.54 protest fees paid by
plaintiff for the protest of said note
| The defendant is also indebted to
the plaintiff in the sum of $3.50 with
| interest thereon from October 31st,
1905, on a certain written draft of
| bill of exchange by one F. r. Mich
OILS dated at Pittsburg, Pa, October
10th, 1905, wherby said Nichols re
quests one A. L. Bentley, fifteen days
after the date thereof, to pay to the
i order of said defendant the sum of
$3.50 for value received, which said
bill of exchange was duly presented
to said Bentley and accepted by him
Dayable at the Commercial Rank of
II Titusville, Pennsylvania, and after
wards and before the maturity there
of the same was endorsed by the de-
fendant and delivered to the said
Enterprise National Bank, and the
same was purchased by the said
before the maturity, and the pro-
ceeds thereof paid to defendant; and
afterwards, on October 31st, 1905,
said bill of exchange was presented
and shown to the said A L. Bentley
for payment thereof, and payment
Bentley did not at said time when
the said bill of exchange was so pre-
sented and shown to him for payment
Thereon as a foresaid, or at any time
before or afterwards, pay the said
sum of money therein specified or
any part thereof, but then and there
refused so to do,of which the defen-
dant had due notice. Both the said
F. R. Nichols and the said A. L. Ben
ley were and are agents of the de-
fendant. and the said F. R. Nichols