The daily journal. (Salem, Or.) 1899-1903, 1901-04-25
COMPANY
VS.. r. R. ANS0N
To Recover Various Sums Al
legged to Have Been Con-
verted.
Argument of Counsel for De-
fense in Suit to Collect
Money.

|
The case Of Salem Light l6 Traction
Company vs. r. r Anson, the former
manager Of the corporation, wherein
the conversion Of t33S7 Of the coin
pany's funds is charged, was concluded
In Department No. l., Of the Marion
County circuit court Wednesday after.
noon. The court ordsred the testimony
extended and Il will probably be several
weeks before a decision is rendered.
The case against Mr.. Anson was basel
upon an apparent irregularity in the
books OF the corporation In relation 10
an account called the "warrant account, ,
in which was supposed 10 be placed
warrants received by the company for
services and which we're not immedi'
mediately collectable. What par.
ticular warrants we're included
In the account was not clearly
shown or who had possession Of them,
but while A. A. Cunningham was book
keeper for'the company be Was required
10 charge .off 500 from the warrant
account" and place the same in another
account called the the "stores account, ("
which meant supplies on hand. AZ
another time the sum OF t2O50.55 was
likewise charged on into the "stores
account" without IL appearing any stores
or goods bad been purchased and the
inference drawn by the plaintiff
corporation was that the amounts
represented by these two items were
retained by the defendant out OF collec-
tions made by him from the various
items In the warrant account" The
remainder Of the sum sued for is made
up Of the two items in the assets
turned over 30 the company by
che receiver, one being claim
against the State Of Oregon and the
other against the City Of Salem. It
did not appear from the Company's
books that either Of the items had been
accounted for to the corporation in full
by the manager, there being a balance
Of ti70.76 Of the state claim and t9l.92
Of the city claim unaccounted for; and
another item Of $3.50 as an oyer.pay ment
or oyer-charge on wood contract with
one J. Huffman.
The second cause Of action Was over a
city warrant for tl535 aud a Marion
county warrant Tor $50, which Mr.. An.
son received shortly before his retire.
ment as manager, and which he refused
10 deliver mp, claiming some offsets
against the Company.
The case was very warmly contested
on legal points involved aud occupied
three entire days in its consideration.
When the plaintiffs had concluded their
case Tuesday afternoon, Attorney Slater
for the defense ocoasioned some surprise
by announcing that they would offer no
testimony, but would areue the case
purely on the legal points involved by
agreement concluding arguments we're
deferred until Wednesday. In reviewing
the testimony in behalf OF the defend
ant. Counsel Slater delivered logical
aud thoroughly prepared argument.
lie said the action Of the plaintiff cor
poration was basjd on the alleged con
version OF its monies aggregating fi3s7,
made up OF a large number Of small
items The defendant assert there
was no conversion boy him
Of any money belonging TO the plaintiff
aud claimed that during the fifteen
months that he was la charge OF the
plaintiffs business as manager, that he
Was plaintiffs agent and In control Of
all lie property with powers 10 purchase
supplies, fixtures aud appliances IN the
conduct OF its business aad 10 hire labor,
and that in doing 10 he was authorized
10 collcct all moneys due plaintiff and to
pay the same cut On demands against a..
That as such agent he came into local
possession OF all the moneys due the
plaintiff aud Il any OF it was paid out by
him upon any Invalid debt, that be had
not converted the money but that he
NNNlN hn NANtN NNlN va hthA 10
the plaintiff, that ~, that the
relation OF debtor aud creditor
existed between himself aud the
plaintiff aud that when his agency or
management ceased he would be- liable
to'plaintf la an action ior accounting
all property aud reccipts belonging TO
the company but that he would not he
liable as ioT conversion. The defend,
ant also claimed tha, the plaintiff tailcd
la its proof IA showing, a. it would have
10, that tho defendant ever came uto
posse saion OF any oi tho mancy men.
toned la the hrst cause OF complaint
aud therefore he VAS not vallel upon 20
explain What might have hecomr ct The
sums Of money supposed 90 be una,,
counted lor
The caso ior the plainun corporai GA
Was ably argued by Messrs, mugham
aud Ramsey Who contendrd that the
q iendant, a. manager, has oyef-stepIei