The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-08-12

there was nothing to show that the
board of directors officially consented
to such loan
that in October, 1906, he disposed Of
$4,000 Of the third series of bonds,
issued by the company, and that he
| was entitled to, and expected COM
mission Of $4,000 for making such sale,
and that he retained the $500e referred
to, claiming it to be his own, until the
board of directors of the company final
| ly decided that he was not entitled to
n commission on the sale of the bonds,
when he returned it to the company
1t is worthy of note that on the first
and second issues of the bonds of the
company which had been sold. COM
mission of 10 per cent had been paid,
and tins, with the fact that the sale of
the third issues Of bonds was much
issues, and the further fact that the
secretary had given the assurance that
similar commission would be paid,
| justified the belief on the part of Park
inson that he was entitled to the com
mission claimed.
The grounds upon which the board
of directors refused to allow the com.
mission claimed was that it was illegal
because Of tho fact that Parkinson
was n paid officer of the company.
| In regard to the last count In the
complaint, viz, that Parkinson collect
| ed and appropriated to his own use In
terest on company funds deposited in
| banks, it was shown that the sum of
about $2T5 WIS so collected and appro-
priated, which amount was subsequent
ly returned to the company.
| In explanation of this it was stated
by Parkinson that being the bonded
treasurer of the company, and the
custodian of its funds. and responsible
] for them. he was entitled to the inter.
est so collected
In the hearing Of this case great lat
itude has been given, and all evidence
in any way bearing upon it has been
the testimony of the witnesses, the
written evidence submitted. and the
| circumstances connected with the case,
your committee has reached the fol
lowing
Conclusions:
The taxpayers of the Oneida Irriga-
ton district confded their business, in
! full confidence to the officers of the
company, consisting Of a board of three
directors (two of whom acted as pres
ident and secretary, and treasurer.
That the office of director, secretary,
attorney, and acting treasurer were for
time held by one person, and that
after q deputy OF acting treasurer did
| the work of the treasurer, and this ar"
rangement, we believe, is largely re-
sponsible for the present unfortunate
condition of the company.
| We find that while drawing the pay
of the treasurer, George G, Parkinson
intrusted the handling Of the company
funds almost exclusively to the secre-
tary and acting treasurer, The treas"
urer being the only person responsible
under bond, for the handling of the
company funds, we hold that any IT,
regularity which may have occurred
in the handling of such funds is charge
able to him.
We find that there was great care
lessness in keeping the accounts of the
| treasurer 8 office, no proper system OF
accounting having been adopted until
after large amounts of company funds
had been received and disbursed. Had
| proper system of accounting been
adopted In the beginning, many of the
errors made in the management of the
affairs of the company might have been
| avoided.
| We find that the treasurer was wrong
in commingling the funds of the com
pany with his own, and that the rea-
sons assigned for so doing, viz, that he
was under bond to the company and
responsible for the funds which passed
through his hands, and that other pub
| lie officers treated funds entrusted to
them in similar manner, are not suf-
| ficient to Justify such methods.
We find that it was wrong for the
treasurer to charge to the company
| travelling and personal expenses which
were also charged to others, and that
the reasons assigned for so doing, viz,
that valuable services had been rem
dered to the company, for which the
| treasurer could only receive compensa-
tion by including them in expense bills,
| is wrong. We believe that valuable
services were rendered to the company
by the treasurer, and that he was en-,
| titled to compensation therefor, but
such compensation should have been
obtained by proper presentation OF
claims to the board of directors.
In all of the testimony submitted,
your committee does not find sufficient
evidence to establish intent upon the
part Of tho treasurer to defraud the
company, but that he expected, and
| intended to answer to the company for
| all funds which came lnto his posses
sion.
In conclusion, your committee feels
that the complainants In this case were
justified in feeling that the interests
of the company in which they are stock
holders have not been properly guarded
by the officers chosen to manage It's
affairs, and that the charges made. ex
cepting some minor details, have been
sustained, with the exception of the
charge that a partnership existed be
tween George G., Parkinson, Arthur w.
Hart and S. G.. Chadwick during tho
year 1905, but we feel that the evidence
was sufficient to justify the presump
tlon on the part of the complainants
that such partnership did exist, and
that they were justified under the cir
cumstances, in demanding an investi-
CATION. Respectfully submitted,
HEBER j. GRANT,
ANTHONY W. WINS,
JOSEPH w. M'MURRIN,