| OCR Text |
Show MRS. L. VAN DIKE HAS ! BROUGHT SHIT FOB HER MONEY In the district court yesterday afternoon, af-ternoon, Valentine Gideon and J. N Kimball, attorneys for Mrs. Louise Van Dyke, formerly Mrs LouiBe ' Turner, filed a complaint against the I Ogden Savings bank to recover J5,- i 531. 83. alleged to be due the plaintiff on a safely deposit. The complaint alleges that on December De-cember 23, 1908. the plaintiff mada I a safety deposit with the bank of $440 at 4 per cent Interest, to be compounded twice a year, and that since October 13 of this year the bank has repeatedly refused to pay the amount to her. The plaintiff states that she has requested the withdrawal of the deposit a number of times but that the bank officials have refused. The accrued interest on the account. Mrs. Van Dyke alleges, al-leges, has raised the original deposit from $4400 to $5,531.83. It will be recalled that, a short time ago. J J. Turner, former husband hus-band of Mrs. Van Dyke, was arrested on a charge of forgerv and bound over to the district court, the com- II I plaint alleging that he forged the I I name of his wife to certain orders ! for the withdrawal of the plaintiffs ' deposit and that the bank paid out II money to Turner until the entire de-posit de-posit vvas taken up. 1 When the case was taken up, however, how-ever, the district attorney refused to file an information, on the ground that a conviction would be impossible, impos-sible, and. to more fully convince the court that he was acting in good faith, had witnesses called before Judge Howell for examination re- ' garding the facts. The handwriting on the orders issued in Mrs Turner" name, vvas compared with the signature signa-ture of Mrs. Turner and the bank cashier and one of the clerks testified that the orders were not forgeries but that the signatures on the orders and that of Mrs. Turner were Identical Iden-tical Mrs. Van Dyke claimed them to Be forgeries but she could not I testify against her husband without his consent, which, of course, would not give, leaving the district I attorney with no testimony upon which he could base an information. I I'nder those conditions, the court agreed with the district attorney that it would be useless to undertake u I prosecution, so an order was made Mm releasing the prisoner. Turner declares that the orders f were Issued by his wife, but she as II stoutly denies that they were. This question will be involved In the Suit for the money It is understood that If the orders are forgeries, the bank will have to pay the money over again but if not forgeries the plaintiff cannot recover In the meantime. Mrs. Turner WW I commenced divorce proceedings against her husband and was given a decree a few days ago on the Urn groundx of failure to provide in 1 fact. Turner wag In the county Jail awaiting the action of 'he district i.ttorney wnen the divorce proceed- CM ing" were had and he is now in Jail rl serving "5 days for assault. 5 I Th cas1 is looked upon as a com , 1 plicated one and it Is predicted by -cine of the attorneys that there will gql hi- some startling developments before be-fore It Is over, and that charges of conspiracy to defraud may be made. |
