The daily morning journal and courier., 1901-03-15
IN AND ABOUT THE COURTS
IMPORTANT DECISIONS HANDED
 DOWN BY JUDGE 1sORABACK
In the Waterbury Indemnity Suit Three Interesting Cases Ended-The
 Shotgun Case Some Expert Testimony

Shotgun Case-S Some Expert TestimOn
 Gases in tho City Court,
 Judge Roraback handed down thre decisions in the celebrated cases of thu
 New Haven Trust company, receiver o
 the defunct Waterbury Indemnity com lpany, against John B. Doherty, ct a.
 ysterday.
 The following is brief memoranda
 of the Schmidt case:
 The evidence shows that October 1 1894, l.. A. Platt was elected presi- dent of the Connecticut Indemnity
 company and continued to hold that
 position until July 12,' 1897. He was
 again president during 1898. MT. Doher- ty from October, 1894, to July IA, 1898
 was secretafy. During all the time when the defendants were acting in
 these official capacities they were also directors and engaged in the active management and direction of the busi-
 ness affairs of said company. When the defendants assumed con- trol of the company neither of them
 possessed but, little knowledge in the l management of life insurance business. 1 The report of the company shows that at the close of 1894 it had about $19000 in net assets after the insurance de- partment had charged to them about $50 000 of reserve capital and other funds.
 On or about November i, 1894, the de- fendants in the name of the company caused a contract to be made with one F. P Schmidt, of New York city, by which Schmidt was appointed general manager of it's metropolitan district, co New Jersey By the terms of this contract Schmidt was employed to so- licit applications for insurance and col lect premiums for said company in said district for stated percentage of said premiums for his compensation
 This contract, with certain 1nodifica- tions, was renewed and continued in force until the year 1897, when Schmidt severed his relations with the com pany.
 This action is brought by the receiver of said company to recover damages for the alleged wrongful and negligent con- duce of the defendants in the matter of the Schmidt agency and contract.
 The issues involved in this case raise one general inquiry: Was there such negligence in the creation management and control of the Schmidt agency on the part of defendants as to make them personally liable?
 From all the facts and circumstances in evidence am of the opin- ion that these defendants have been guilty of such negligence as to make them personally liable l am not quite clear as to the amount of damages that should be assessed and counsel if they desire may file briefs upon this ques- ion.
 Tn the Dutton claim the court says:
 The loan complained of In this case was s10,O0o, made by s. A. Dutton, March q. 1895. The security was | mortgage upon a steamer known as Jesse B." Endorsements upon the note | given in connection with said loan by | M M. Mumsell and M l. Mumse1l and | eNan Waterbury Land and Improve nent company bonds. The application or the loan was made to the directors nd loaning committee of the company. vho, after thorough examination, ap roved of and made the same. It is al- aged that the defendants failed to and mitted to obtain proper and sufficient ecurity for the payment of said note r any security such as the statute in uch cases requires. The plaintiff has failed to establish S claim that this loan was made in of the statute and there tas no evidence of dishonesty of pur- , ose The results complained of the ,ss which has been met, can be at -ibuted to an investment of money or ( which ultimately proved to be , sufficient but at the time 1t was made I as reasonably and honestly deemed to f e adequate. Z Therefore the issues are found for the , efendants in this case
 On the mortuary settlements Judge oraback finds:
 The plaintiff claimed that the defend- , hts had withdrawn certain sums of Ioney from time to time from the as- It's of said company to pay different ortuary claims named and described (
 different counts of the complaint f ell knowing that said sums were not aeded to pay and satisfy said claims. hat in each instance there were cer- r in balances not paid to the beneficiar- t s which the defendants wrongfuily ', nitted to return to the treasury of id company and that by reason ereof suchbalances were wholly lost s said company. The balances apparently unaccount- q
 for were used in paying commis- W ons and expenses of the adjuster and a her legitimate claims of the company. S 1e secretary produced a book kept in q s possession which explained these i'd other claims of this nature and ex- g made in connection there- e. tn From this book and other evi- u nee the balances questioned were ac- II unted for. While the methods adopt W
 in relation to these claims must be 1T verely criticised yet from this evil IT nee I find that the plaintiff has failed o1 prove the important allegation in the SC that "this money represented by a ase balances was wholly lost to said p' npany." Ill Therefore I find for the defendants
 RORABACK, Judge.
 THE SHOTGUN CASE. N The suit of John Libben vs. the Win