The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1934-03-05

houses blasting away at eacf
game Of cowboy and Indian.
But if any appellation is
given Case 2,034 in the guar
dianship records Of Grant
county then it should be
"Eight-Watch Pete"
For Case 2.O34. who for conven-
fence Will be known by a rightful
portion Of his name as Peter
c." shows a purchase of eight
watches and five Watch-Chains in
ten years, with the approval Of his
guardian, the old Marion National
bank.
Peter c., a World war vet
eran and patient in the National
sanItarium for veterans up to his
discharge several years ago, began
his penchant for watches ranging
in value. $3.50 to SO. on Dec. 6. 1922,
according to his guardianship
records.
He purchased a watch, chain, and
cuff links for $50 from a Marion
leWelry store.
His next desire for having Father
Time keep him company was Jan.
10. 1924, a S375 watch and chain.
Purchases Come Yearly
Purchases after that came yearly.
on Nov. 10, 1924. watch, So so;
March ,. 1928. watch chain. $3.50;
Feb. Is, 1927. watch, 1925; May 20,
1927. repair watch. $3.50: Nov. IA,
1923, watch, $40. July 6. 1929, watch
$40, Feb. II, 1890, watch and chain,
Sill. Jan. I3, 1882, watch and chain,
$3.50.
But in February. 1888. the desire
to want a watch changed to rings
and a S720 ring was purchased for
the banks ward
officials of the veterans sani-
tauum say that Peter G's records
show no jewelry and that if he had
purchased that many watches and
they had known it that they would
have demonstrated.
Discrepancies Shown
officers of the old Marion Ma
tiOnal bank do not recall the Occa-
sions of the purchase of watches
Tor Peter c.
Oddly Peter G's vouchers for
funds exr ended on file in the Grant
court clerks files show discrepan-
CieS in the signing of the vouchers.
As an example on two vouchers
on Dec. Is, 1922. the veterans ap-
proyal of the expenditure is made
in two ways
On one voucher his name is
signed in a Scrawl that is legible;
on the second voucher on the same
day for a different amount he could
only make his mark"
The mark. an * is not wit
messed.
Checks corresponding to the
vouchers in the files of the old
Marion National bank show no in
dOrsements on the back of the
checks.
1t is said to be good banking
practice as well as the custom in
the signing of legal documents to
insure proper signature where a
mark is made that witnesses attest
to the mark.
Explanation Is Made
1t also is good practice for checks
to carry Endorsements.
It Is explained. however. by former
officials of the old Marion National
bank that small Irregularities of
little consequence appear in the best
Of banks.
Clothing expenditures of S29163
were made for Peter c. from
May l, 1929 TO Jan. 81, 1881.
On anOtE er voucher in Peter Gs
estate is a S. expenditure which
shows that his name was begun in
his own handwriting and the
Peter" and the G. of his last
name written as signature to the
voucher and then added to that in
obviously different handwriting, the
remainder of his name.
It is disclosed IN the guardianship
of Case 2,015, now restored to SAN
ity. that the old Marion National
bank NOV in liqUdatiOn) permitted
the ward to spend S426.45 from May
II. 1929, to Dec. TO- 1890. for clothing.
The court records show that Case
2.0l5 bought razorS during his So
JOurn at the veterans hospital
Hospital rules Go not permit pa
tlentS to own razorS.
The records also show that Case