The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-06-13
KERR INSURANCE
CASE DISMISSED
PROSECUTION FAILS TO sUBsTAN-
TIATE ENCOURAGEMENT CHARGE.
Motions to Dismiss Case on Trial and to
No1le Remaining Indictment Are
Granted by Judge Brooks Court
Gives Reasons for It's Action.

The trial Of Judge w. A. Kerr, for
mer counsel and director Of the. North
western National Life Insurance COM
pany, came to a sudden end today. Tho
state failed to make out case Of en-
bezzlement against him, and shortly
after noon today Assistant County At
torney John +. Dahl moved the court
granted and the other indictment
against the defendant was nolled, also
on motion of Mr.. Dahl.
The prosecutor said, in making his
motion for dismissal, that he had not
known what the witnesses, former Of
icials, would testify to until they took
the stand and that they had failed to
tell enough to make out case.
Courts Statement.
In dismissing the case and discharg-
ing the jury Judge T. C. Brooks gave
the following comprehensive statements
of the evidence and his reasons for
granting tho state IS motion:
"The county attorney frankly con-
cedes that, in his opinion, the evidence
which has been received in this case
would be insufficient to sustain con-
viction, and has stated that if the court
is of the same opinion, he moves that
tho action be now dismissed. And the
couIl' HdV41S dloo iedCHeu Gue sam
conclusion, has concluded to grant the
motion to dismiss, and deems it proper
at this time to- state, the reasons why
it has arrived at such conclusion, and
why the motion is granted.
EThe charge against the accused,
briefly stated. is that, on the Goth day
of January, 1908. while a director Of
the Northwestern National Life Insur-
ance company, he embezzled $4,000
10 BE- RI
on the day stated by the insurance
company to DR.. Force, and was paid in
| conformity with the terms Of exhibit
F, in evidence, before the jury, which
purports upon its face to be a contract
| between the corporation and DR.. Force,
executed on that day. It is not claimed
that the money, or any part Of it, was
piid to or actually reached the hands
of the defendant. The claim Of the
the case, was that, as q director Of the
corporation, at meeting Of it's board
Of directors, he introduced and voted
for resolution ratifying and confirm
ing the contract pursuant to which the
money was paid, and which had been
previously executed by DR.. Force and
| by the president Of the corporation in
| it's behalf. And the claim was that
the defendant, in doing this, and there
/
authorizing the payment Of $4,000
embezzied the money. l..
!. Contract Analysed.
"The contract Of Jan. 20, 1903, wal
in terms an agreement whereby the cor
poration agreed to pay DR.. Force $33,
848.36, $4,000 Of the same to be paid a
once, and the, residue in annual pay
ments thereafter; and whereby it wa
| ,t,1o1 1vyo there
Of that DR.. Force Should surrender al
claims which he had, against the corpo
ration under1a previous contract enteret
into between; him and the corporation
on Dec. 26, 1885, BY the latter con
tract DR.. Force was employed as tn
general manager of the corporation TO
a term of years commencing Jan. J
+ nual salary Of $4,000. The contrac
was authorized by the board of direct
ors of the corporation on the day Of it
date, and was ratified and confirmed a
the annual meeting of the members 0
the corporation held in January, 1896
It was subsequently modified in some re
spects. But as originally made, 0
modified. remained in force and wa
acted upon until Jan. 20, 1903. An
g geag sn aa animal ms Salary Gee
mont less than $4,000. For the pu1
poses Of this case at least the contrac
of 1895 was valid and enforceabl
against the corporation, because at
thorized by it's board Of directors, rat
fed and confirmed by it's members an
acquiesced in by all parties for NOR
this contract, upon it's face, entitled D,
: Force, il he performed it's terms on hi
part. to receiv substantially $4,000 a
salary Hereunder; on or prior to til
fist day of January, 1910.
!. | Allo..ro1. y