The Colfax gazette. [volume] (Colfax, Wash.) 1893-1932, 1900-05-11

it Is necessary, in the first place. that
lt be proved by the evidence. that tho
Shawnee Warehouse company was y
corporation, either de lure or de facto
DONG business as such at Shawnee Sid
| ing as warehouse, and was, as a part
OF that business, engaged in receiving
gram lor storage and charging and re-
celVlng compensation therefor at that
pace. A de lure corporation is one
| regularly and duly organized in all re-
spects IN compliance with the law. A
de lacto corporation is one which
although there has not been a full com.
pllance with the law relative to its or
ganlzatlon in all respects, has made
some attempt at compliance with the
law IN respect to its organization and
transacts business in the same manner
as duly organized corporation, If
you find from the evidence. therefore
that the promoters of the Shawnee
warehouse company organized the
SaLne as corporation in compliance
with the laws OF this state. or attemDtpd
70 90 So and as such corporation
transacted business in it's corporatp
name IN this county and state and was
generally recognized by the public and
the defendant as such corporation under
such corporate name, and IT, in that
name and as such corporation it did the
other acts specified in the information.
the proof would be sufficient as to its
corporate character and existence.
lt Is also necessary, in the second
place, that the evidence show that
William Clifford, the defendant in this
case, during the time stated in the in
formation, or a part of the time, was in
the employ OF said corporation and was
acting as it's general manager and agent
IN the conduct of its warehouse business.
and as such was authorized. on it's
behalf, to receive grains for storage in
its warehouse and to issue recpipts
therefor to the persons storing such
grain,
1t Is also necessary, in the third place.
that the evidence show that George
Strelb at some time in or about the
months OF September and October. 1899.
and while the defendant was acting as
such manager and agent of the Ware
house company, delivered the wheat de-
scrlbed In the information, or some part
OF lt, to and that the same was received
by the Warehouse company for storage
by 1t, and that this wheat, or some part
OF 1t, was, by the terms of the defend
ants employment by the Warehouse
company, intrusted to him and was in
his custody as such manager and agent
OF the company.
These facts, which are specifically
alleged in the information, if proved.
and if, at the time of the delivery of the
wheat by Streib, he owned it, have the
effect OF investing the warehouse com.
pany with a special property in the
wheat with the right of possession as
against every person except Streib. or
the holder OF the warehouse receipts. if
any were issued, or other persons sue
ceedlng to his rights, and upon making
payment OF storage charges, and of con
stltutlng the company a special and
qualified owner of it; and, at the same
time, II the defendant we're the manager
and agent OF the company having charge
OF the warehouse and the custody OF this
wheat, after he had so received and
stored it therein, as such, it would also
an intrusting of the wheat by
the company to him, so that, in case he
fraudulently converted the wheat, or
any part OF it, to his own use or failed
to account for iG to the company, he
would be guilty of a violation of the
statute to which | have referred, if the
other essential facts be established. 1t
must appear, therefore, that the wheat
was received from Streib by the defend
ant, as the manager and agent of the
warehouse company and for and on its
account, as q WarehOuseman, and was
so stored and held by him, as such
and agent for the company
and in its name as such warehOuseman.
Ii this were done, the company thereby
became the special and qualified owner
of it, although Streib may have con-
tinued to be its general owner; and if,
in such case and by virtue Of his being
the general manager and agent of the
company, he had authority to receive
and store this wheat for and in the
name OF the company and did so, and if
then, by virtue of his employment and
agency, he had authority from it to
take and keep possession of this wheat
and did so as it's manager and agent,
under such employment and agency,
instruct you that, in contemplation Of
law, this was the special property of the
and he, as its agent, was in
trusted by the company with it, and he
had no right, without authority from
the company or Streib, to convert it to
his own use, and that it was his duty to
account to the company for it, when
reasonably required by it to do SO.
Ia the fourth place, it is necessary
that the evidence show that, while it
was SO in his possession as such manager
and agent of the warehouse company,
after it had been so intrusted to him az
such manager and agent, by the COM
pany, and while the company as ware
houseman was charged with its storage,
he either fraudulently converted it, or a
part of it, to his own use, or fraudulent
ly failed to account to the warehouse
company for it, or a part Of it. II ne
did both, that is, if he fraudulently con-
verted it to his own use and also fraud
ulently failed to account to the company
for it, upon reasonable request by it to
do so, he would be guilty OF this offense,
in case the other essential facts are
shown to exist. There are, however,
but two methods of committing the
same offense. The law does not require,
in order to render him guilty of it, that
be do both; if he did either, that is, if be
committed the offense by either method,
or bv both methods, it would be but one
and the same offense; but it is necessary
that he did one or the other OF them in
order to constitute this element of the
offense. If, therefore, you find from the
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt,
that, without authority from the COM
pany or from Streib, he sold this wheat,