The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-05-12

William F. Bechtel did not intend,
says a jury, to defraud the company
Of which he was president when he paid
his personal debt with g. $500 check
on the company 8 funds.
This is the meaning of the verdit OF
"not guilty. returned by the jury in
the famous insurance case two hours
after retiring last night.
The result came as a surprise to MOST
of those who have listened to the evil
dence in the case, and was gratefully
received by the . defendant and his
counsel, who warmly shook hands and
| thanked each of the jurors after they
had been discharged.
| This does not necessarily end the
prosecution of the former insurance
| company president, as there, are six
indictments left standing against him.
Five of these charge grand larceny IN
the first degree, and in the other in
| dictment he is accused of giving a>bribe
to former Insurance Commissioner FL
mer Dearth.
| These cases are set for trial Monday,
and at that time County Attorney Al j..
Smith will probably announce his inten-
ton as to further trials.
| Judge Brooks Charge.
Judge Brooks charged the jury yes
IL.
! technical matteds contained in all we'll
considered charges, the court continued
with discussion Of the law, bearing
upon the vital issues of the case. Along
| this line he said: -,
80 ttssThe money Of a mutual insurance
corporation does not belong to it's Off
GERS and they cannot rightfully treat it
as their own. While they are entitled
to it's possession. they hold it in trust
for the benefit Of the policyholders.
While they have the legal right to dis.
and proper ways for the benefit Of the
corporation and it's members, and must
be accorded a reasonable discretion as
to how, within proper limits, it shall
be expended and used, no such officer
has any legal right or authority to treat
the corporate funds as tho the same
were his own exclusive property, or to
dispose of the same for his own exclu'
sive benefit, nor can any officer Of such
corporation lawfully use it's funds fol
any object foreign to the purposes OF
the corporation or for any purpose for
hidden by, law, even tho such use Is
authorized by all of its officers and may
seem to them to be for the benefit OF
them and it's policyholders. 4.
Gin this case the bank upon which
the check was drawn was, Of course
= warranted in honoring it, for the banl
: had been authorized & to- honor an,
: check drawn as this check was. But a
between the defendant and the insur
ance companies, he could not issue
a check to himself or to any other pei
!. SON for his sole. benefit unless he wa
authorized to do SO by the director
, Of the corporation, acting as a board
or by majority Of them acting sepa
t rately, or by the other. two member
a of the executive committee In issu
ing this check or directing it's issu
? ance, he could not act as an officer 0
+ the. corporation, either as it's presiden
. or as director or as a member Of it
executive committee. No man ca.
! iii htfully serve two masters; q servan
4 cannot rightfully represent his maste
;, in business transaction between tn
: master and himself In such case
= he can represent himself alone. An
: even tho it were conceded that M,
:. saekett signed the check with a ful
knowledge of the facts, it is not show!
that DR.. Force authorized it's issuanc
or even knew that it was being signe
or issued. The defendant, because o
t his interest, was disqualified to act. Dl
t Force did not. act, and one membe
J, alone Of the executive committee coul
: not, under, the evidence, lawfully al
9 propriate or pay out $500 of the con
pany's money, and for this reason til
Q check was issued without authority. Y
!. Check Not Sanctioned. Z
II fr57 r-oNE = 10y Z : s :