The herald., 1893-07-01

the defendants liability. and the bal
ance OF the opinion is devoted to it.
That he is liable for a portion Of the
amount the court thinks admits OF no
doubt. To the extent of upwards OF
$4,000, he thinks the evidence shows,
WAS due directly to the wrongful and
fraudulent acts of the defendant, aud
what became Of the balance of the de-
fciency does not appear clearly from the
record.
After instancing numerous transac-
tions to show fraudulent intent on the
part Of the defendant, the court says:
THAT the defendant himself knew he
had not acted with honesty and good
faith in the discharge OF his trust is
made evident by his contrite and peni-
tent. letter to the president OF the
plaintiff corporation of date September
rs, 1889, in which he states that he be-
gins to realize how ungrateiul he has
been and how he has sinned, and for
the sake of bis family begs that he may
be pardoned.
The court also quotes from other let
ters by the defendant acknowledging hiB
culpapility and begging for forgiveness,
and then says the statements by Rey-
nolds' counsel that nothing could be
found on his part but care, industry and
open handed honesty, must be attribut-
ed to the belief that the zeal and enthu-
siasm of counsel has blinded him to the
weakness Of his clients cause.
Summing up his discussion of the
matter, Judge Clark says that to him
the case elbows that a man had been
employed as the managing agent of q
corporation, was given the custody Of
it's property and charge of it's business,
with power to employ and discharge its
employees. He agreed that accurate
accounts should be kept of the business.
The relation continued for seven years.
After it had continued for four years he
employed bookkeeper, who continued
for three years and then disappeared.
The agent neglected to inform his
principal of the disappearance until two
weeks thereafter, and then stated his be-
lief that the employee was q defaulter.
When told that an examination ia to be
had he stated that the books were cor
rect up to within four months OF the dis
appearance, and the examination need
not 60 back of that period.
But the examination showed gross ir-
regularities and frauds with many of
which the agent was directly connected,
and most OF which occurred prior to the
time be had stated he knew the accounts
to be correct and some at time prior to
9he employment OF the book-keeper. AS
result there was deficiency in cash OF
about $4S, 700, large portion of which
was traced directly to the agent.
A close connection between the agent
and book-keeper was shown, it appear
ing that they had had dealings in COM
mon, and had been engaged as partners
in one or more transactions outside
of the principals business. In one
instance, at least, it was known to the
agent that the bookkeepsT paid one OF
their partnership debts out of the COM
psny's funds and caused an incorrect
entry in relation to the matter to be
made in the companY's books.
II such is not case, the court asks,
| where an agent should be required to
render an Account and explanation Ii
would be difficult to find case in the
books that is. The magnitude OF the
defalcation itself was an evidence of
| negligence.
There was such breach of contract
on the part of the defendant, the court
holds, such failure to give to the
duties of his employment, diligent,
faithful and honest attention, that he
must be held liable for the full amount
of tho deialcation; that being so the
matter of the tender of 1000 is not
important.
The Judgment is for the plaintiff in
the amount stated, s4s ,693.J2. to which
the court adds the amount of the Tai
bert note of $13, 900 and interest, less the
+, amount OF dividends that have beer
paid on or earned by the stock pledged
which must be credited. aio a