The morning call., 1894-03-24
A INTO ONE POCKET.
Were Benefits Mutual in
This Case?
Directors of the Mutual Endowment
Association Charged With Fraudu-
lent Conspiracy.

The difficulties surrounding Il the Lie
and Annuity Association of Oakland.
formerly known as the Mutual Endow-
ment Association, have come to a head
two suits being filed yesterday, alleging
fraud on the part of the directors.
One suit is brought by Harriet NAL
lett against the corporation and +. h
Shattuck, ". II. Jordan, A. ID. Pratt, A.
w. Bishop, n. Rosenberg and w. w.
Camron, directors. The plaintiff reeites
the history of the concern from its first
Incorporation up to December, 1892, when
its name was changed. The corporation
was supposed to be in existence "for the
mutual endowment of lis members and TO
secure pecuniary aid to the families as
legatees from the deceased members by
assessments levied upon the members Of
the association, all such assessments to be
levied in proportion to the ages of the
mem bers."
The plaintiff in June last endeavored to
collect $1,000 from the association upon
the first cOuron of her certificate, but she
is still endeavoring. Again. in October
last, the association endeavored to insure
her and all other members, as well as to
conceal their wholesale Interpretations
by delivering to George Burbank all the
books and records OF the concern. Aud
since that date the defendant directors
have taken no further part in the manage
ment of the business.
+. &. Shattuck was president and a. w.
Bishop secretary Of the company, and Mrs.
Mallett claims that they nspired with
the other directors to permit their agents
10 embeZZle large sums OF money, the
thefts being co vered up by fake entries in
the associations books. On the books OF
membership were the names of prominent
persons as Iolicy- holders. persons who had
allowed their policies to lapse by failure
to fulfill their obligations to the company.
Yet in spite OF this IL is claimed that the
president and secretary caused from time
to time sums of money to be paid to these
persons.
1n this manner Mrs. Mallett saws that
$4,000 and more was fraudulently paid
ever. and the following instances of this
are recorded: j. Z. Cochran, S1344: w. H.
Jordan, 500; J. NJ Williams. S1059; E. NJ.
Bishop, 500; l.. RABBIT. S762; A. G. Pier,
$1,000; j. Jechener, $1,000.
Again, it is charged that between Au-
gust, 1884. and October, 1898, the defend
ants collected from members SS4, S37,
which, as trustees, ii was their duty to
keep Out Of this sum not more tnan
$4,000 was legitimately expended by them,
lcdNIHB d DdlauCo Ol over SOS,UUU QlSp0S6Q
OF by fraudulent meth DDS. The defend
ants are charged with having drawn checks
upon the treasurer of the association for
the following sums, having no claims
whatever TO entitle them TO do so: F. X.
Shattuck, S5045; A. W. Bishop, S14,4S4;
A: H. Pratt, S5492; ". W. Camron. S775;
w. II. Jordan, $500; W. Rosenberg S575I
Accordingly, the plaintiff asks that an
accounting be had from the defendant d.
rectors of all moneys received and dis
bursed, and that a receiver be appointed
to take charge Of the affairs of the asso-
citation.
a similar suit has been filed by Bertha
Meyer against the same corporation. Mrs.
Meyer sues as the assignee of score or so
of persons who claim to have been vic
tlmlZed by the association, the claims in
all amounting 10 $40, $50 in sums paid into
the company. II is claimed that the d-
rectors received this money without hav-
ing fulfilled the preliminary obligations
emitting hem TO receive it, and that on
this account ell contracts entered into are
null and void.