Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1922-03-04

said that amount had been placed in 2
bank and held in interest Of the bonding
company but stated the money would
not be paid out unless on an order OF
court.
Mr. Haas coatended that It was the
position OF the county clerk that the
money spent by Sipe for stock now in
the hands Of the bonding company came
from the trust fund through Sipe's mis-
use Of funds and that any money loaned
by Sipe which is covered by notes now IN
the hands Of the bonding company, orig
inalIy came from the trust fund.
COUNTY CLERK
PROPER CUSTODIAN
THAT money belongs to the county
clerk as custodian Of that fund and We
are attempting TO recover it." Mr.. Haas
said.
Il was the contention OF Mr.. SchIosser
that the position Of the eountry clerk
in this case is no different than that OF
any Individual whose money was il the
trust fund.
Mr.. Davidson outlined the position OF
the bonding compGay as Follows: Mr.
Sipe gave bond and the Hartford Acct
dent and Indemnity Company was surety
Il appears that there was a bank balance
OF $4,000, but l assume there are now
10 funds in the trust fund. Attorneys for
the county clerk made a verbal demand
upon the bonding company for all prop
erty turned over by Sire to the company.
The principal is liable for $4,000 and
the surety, il the surety IS liable, Is LA
bic to the extent Of the surety.
81 think that it vii! be disclosed that
Mr.. Sipe came voluntarily TO the bonding
company and admitted his shortages ana
voluntarily turned over certain holdings
and certificates Of stock. The question is
what IS to be done ultimately with these
assets
Sir. Davidson said there Is no chance
realizing anything from the property al
this time with the exception Of the notes
unless It were slaughtered settling at a
sacrifice. he said II tie bonding com
pany should attempt to dispose Of any
Of SiPe's holdings the bonding company
might be liable.
Mr.. Davidson emphatically stated Mr.
-Schl0sser must show where the money
claimed by his client went In other
words, Mr.. Davidson Coatended the S. GOO
was paid into the clerks Office a long
time after Mr.. Sipe had purchased any
stock and none OF the certificates Of stock
now in the hands of the bonding COM
pany covered the $3.50 in question.
STATEMENT BY
JUDGE DALTON.
Judge Dalton said the court was not
clear on certain points and after being
assured that Mr.. Davidson would not
dispose OF any funds or other property
in his hands at this time, the court con
tinued the hearing.
The court asked the question il il was
not 4 fact that the outgoing county CLERK
was obligated TO turn over to the in
coming clerk the trust fund. The court
intimated that il was the duty Of Mr..
Coffin as county clerk to continue his
efforts to recover the trust fund or its
equivalent.
Mr.. slpe was brought into court after
Judge Collins had ordered the sheriff
TO do so. Joseph william, attorney, said
Judge Collins at first refused to grant the
request as the court did not care TO di-
vuIge grand jury evidence.
Mr.. Williams said he informed Judge
Collins that unless an order was issued lie
would file in the Federal Court a petit
ton for involuntary bankruptcy against
Sipe. Judge Collins later issued the or
requiring Sheriff Snider to bring Sipe
into court.
Richard Y. sipe. defaultiug county
clerk, was taken from the county jail this
morning to Superior Court, room l, to
testify in the receivership action brought
by Mrs. Nola B. Parrish agains. the
AA~-A sAoA0 @ANNA0EAE anu AAAEAAAlLf GoAH~
pany.
Sipes appearance in court came as the
result Of a subpoena that had been is
sued by Robert II. Dalton, Judge pro
tenn. who IS hearing the receiversnip ac-
ton. Sheriff George Snider refused to
bring the prisoner into court until he
had received an order from Judge James
4. Collins Of Criminal Court
According to Joseph r. Williams OF
the law firm OF Schiosser & Williams. at
torneys for Mrs. Parrish, Judge Collins
first refused to give the order for Sipe's
appearance on the ground that he did
not want him to reveal facts that should
be presented TO the grand jury.
Mr.. WilIiams declared If Sipe was not
allowed to testify in the receivership
case he would so into Federal Court
and ask for bankruptcy proceedings
against the indemnity company.
Mrs Parrish brought the action against
the company which was surety on Sipe's
100000 bond, IN order to recover 5000
which had been awarded TO her through
court judgment and which Sipe is charged
with having embezzled.
Plans are also being made to summon
witnesses 70 appear before the Marion
County grand jury when that body Mon