The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1907-03-17
SERIOUS MISTAKE BUT
ESCAPES PUNISHMENT
Judge Fox Gives Decision in
Smithmeier Case.
RULING is INTERESTING

In the case of the exceptions to the
final report of John F. Smithmeier,
executor of the estate of his mother,
Catherine Smithmeier. Judge Fox
yesterday overruled the exceptions
to the report, but at the same time re-
buked Mr.. Smithmeier for his actions
as executor This case was heard a
few days ago and in giving his opinion
yesterday Judge Fox alluded to it as
fog of mystery When the argu-
ments in the case were heard Satur-
day week ago. Attorney J. F. Rob-
bins, for the plaintiffs, created quite
sensation by his attack on Mr.. Smith
meier.
Reviews the Evidence.
In rendering his opinion Judge Fox
reviewed the evidence in the case,
stating how Smithmeier, who lived
with his mother, had at her bidding
drawn $4,000 from the bank and had
given it to her on her death bed. He
told how Smithmeier had testified that
his mother had given him 81 1000, but
that he did not know what became of
the remaining $4,000, beyond the state
that she intended to give the money
to charity. Judge Fox cited the fact
that Smithmeier could not state what
charity or charities had received this
sum.
Gift is Corroborated.
1.-THE statement made by John" said
Judge Fox that his mother gave him
$1,000 would seem to be corroborated
by the fact that in making her will
she excluded him from participating
in the distribution of her personal es-
tate made in the residuary clause,
which would have amounted to more
than the amount she gave him."
Secrecy the Watchword.
Judge Fox stated that secrecy seem
ed to have been the watchword OF ev-
cry step taken by the late Mrs. Smith
meier, citing several instances where
she made donations and enjoined
strict silence on the part of those ben
efitting by these donations.
The Courts Ruling.
In his ruling Judge Fox said:
1T is commended that the evidence
convicts the executor, John Smith
meier. of appropriating the five thou
sand dollars in question to his own
use, and for that reason he should be
required to account for it. There is
certainly no direct evidence upon this
point. The only evidence supporting
the proposition is the proof that he
lived alone with his mother and had
an opportunity to take the money,
coupled with the fact that he made
certain unsatisfactory statements aft
er his mothers death, when question
ed as to his knowledge of the missing
money. He made great mistake when
he refused to tell his sisters all he
knew about the money when they
made inquiry By doing so he has
Swallowed himself with a suspicion
that will hang over him while he lives.
He excused himself by explaining that
his mother exacted from him a sol
emn promise to keep what he knew Sc
cret.
Falls Short Of Proof.
"The fact that a person had had the
opportunity to commit a crime, when
taken in connection with other circum-
stances in certain cases may be-
come important in fixing guilt, but
standing alone it would fall short OF
proof. There was no confession of
guilt in any of the statements he made
after his mothers death. There is no
evidence that he had any unusual
sums in his possession after the mon |
ey was drawn from the bank: he made |
no unusual deposits or investments. |
The money went into Mrs. Smith |
meters hands four months and seven |
teen days before her death. If she |
drew the money for the purpose of |
making some disposition of it, she had |
ample opportunity to do so. II John |
took the money and appropriated IL to |
his own use, his mother would GER |
tainly have known it and made CON- |
plant. but this she never did There |
is not word Of evidence showing |
that she had the money in her pos |
session or about the house when she