The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1926-07-13
CITY LOSES
IN BARRETT
LAW FIGHT
Judge Leathers Sustains
Demurrer in Suit Against
County Treasurer.
RUcKER TO CARRY ON
Municipal Lawyer Pins Faith
on Federal Court.

Until the State Legislature
changes the law, the city cannot by
action in State courts keep the
Marion County treasurer from
pocketing 100000 a year in interest
on city Barrett law funds.
This was seen as the effect of a
ruling of Superior Judge James NJ.
Leathers. made today. He sustained
the demurrer Of County Treasurer
Edward A. Ramsay to the citys
petition for a receiver to administer
the fund and for an order to invest
public, not the treasurer.
Leathers did not hold that
Ramsay is entitled to the interest.
He suggested it is not proper for
the treasurer to keep the interest,
but he did not fatty prohibit the
treasurer from personally profiting
by the huge annual sum.
Amendment Suggested
The court held that as the law
stands the city cannot lay hands
upon the interest and suggested that
the remedy lies in an amendment Of
the law by the Legislature.
Corporation Counsel Alva Rucker,
who filed the petition, said he was
much chagrined and disappointed
at losing my battle to save 100000
of the taxpayers money from the
politicians every year.
II will carry on my fight with
that / have chance to win that.
Meanwhile Rucker filed in Federal
Court motion to strike out the
plea in abatement of his petition,
filed by the Barber Asphalt Paw
ing Company.
Would Stay Injunction
Rucker, in Federal Court seeks 70
stay an injunction of Judge. Albert
B. Anderson in 1908, whereby the
Barrett law funds stay in the hands
of the county treasurer instead Of
in a public depository. Treasurers
for two decades have cited this in
junction as their authority for pock
citing the interest.
The Barber Asphalt Paving Com
pany, which originally obtained this
injunction, sought to stop Fuckers
effort to abolish the injunction by
filing a plea in abatement contend
ig Judge Robert C. Baltzell has no
jurisdiction.
Rucker answered this today with
an extensive brief citing authorities
to show the court does have juris-
diction and concluding:
1--WE think the court. in granting
this relief prayed for and staying
permanently the decree. will render
a great public service and remove
a great reproach as to Office holding
in the city of Indianapolis"
Growing Sentiment
In his ruling on the city's suit for
receiver Judge Leathers said.
There is a growing sentinel and
demand on the part of the taxpayers
of this city that this apparent de-
feet of our law be properly remedied
so as to remove all doubt and con-
fusion on this question of interest
and thereby end an alleged evil which
has been suffered to exist for so
long a period.
This court is not called upon to
make any suggestion. but it may not
be improper to state that If any in
justice, wrong or confusion exists
as a result of defects in our present
laws relating to this question Of
interest, it is no doubt the province
and duty of the Legislature in the
interest of justice and the further
ance of sound public policy to en-
act appropriate legislation which
shall eradicate and cure an evil
which apparently has taken deep