The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-02-12
BILL AGAINST BANK
UT FILED BY GILBERT AND
Bucket shop PeopIe Want Money Csn- fIscated ny Ingtitutien To nepay Losses Through Dedication or Alex ChishOIm.

Birmingham. Feb. lI.--(Special.)--
 Butt mas been filed in the city court by Gilbert and Clay. stock and cotton
 brokers. against the American Trust
 and Savings Bank for the recovery of bso.11o.
 It is an echo of the Alexander R.
 oim. the alleged defaultinF paying tel Fer of the First National Bank, is said .to have drawn on checks made payable .to one s. NJ. Webster. who. it Is claimed, 'nevef existed.
 The suit throws something or new light in the case and may be said to Ibe of the nature of an assumpsit sult, There are sixteen counts and eight |checks are narrated, different notes be- ling given. The first two counts tell of the first check given and are similar to the rest with the exception of da.es. They read:
 The plaintiffs claim of the defen- |Aants, American Trust and Savings Bank. body corporate, s1,25o due to l plaintiffs upon deposit In and for said |amount made by the plaintiffs with the defendant (the latter then carrying on To regular banking business), prior to |the sth day of February 1906, with in- ferest thereon. and the plaintiffs aver on said Sth day of February, 1906, they had on deposit with the defendant, to the credit of tine plaintiffs. said amount. subject to be drawn or checksd out by the plaintiffs. and on said sth day of February. 1906. the plaintiffs gave a check on said bank for s1.250 payable to the order of SIM. Webster, which said check had been procured from the plaintiffs by Alexander K. Chisolm. who falsely and fraudulently represented to the plaintiffs, through their agents. fx,k |. f<... not h. ster in receiving the said checks, and plaintiffs aver that there was no such person as S NJ Webster of which fact the p1aintiffs were ignorant at the time Chisolm after so receiving said cheek. drawn and payable upon said check the name S NJ. Webster. and the said check so endorsed was paid by the defendant, although said en- dursement was fraudulent as hereinbe- fore set out, and the plaintiffs aver that before the commencement of this suit. they demanded of the defendant to pay to plaintiffs the amount of said de- posit, which said demand was refused
 Count two: And the plaintiffs claim of the defendant the further sum of s1s250, with interest thereon, which said sum was deposited by plaintiff with the defendant, or prior to Febru- Rry 8, 1906, and the same was on said day on deposit in said bank to the credit of plaintiffs. the said amount being deposited subject to withdrawal or checking out by plaintiffs, the defen
 dant then being engaged In a regular banking business; and the plaintiffs aver that prior to the bringing of this suit. they defnandeds to allow plain tins to withdraw or to check out said sum, which demand was refused by the defendant.
 The bank is asked to pay Gilbert end Clay money paid Chisolnl on seven other checks as follows: March M0, 3f.745; March 13, $i,s25: March i7, $6.l0o; March so,I s450; May 19. $500; May5, $2o.000, July 2. s12,000 which to- tai with the $1,250 mentioned in the counts quoted aggregate $50,I10.