Putnam patriot., 1915-04-02
DIRECTORS ARE
RESPONSIBLE
Supreme Court Holds That Bank
Men Failed to Do Their Duty
RETRIAL ORDERED. FOR TWO
Chief Justice Prentice and JUDGE
Roraback Dissent in Windsor Locks
Bank Case-1Statute of Liml-
tations Operates.

Hartford. - The Connecticut GIN
preme Court of Errors. by a three 10
two decision, held that the superior
court erred in finding that the direct
ors Of the Windsor Locks Savings
Bank fulfilled their full duty in safe
guarding the interests of the denosit-
ors, who lost through the defalcatiops
Of A. W. Converse. the former treas
urer Of the institution, and found that
the directors. while they may have
exercised the care of ordinarily pru-
dent men, failed to fulfill their duty
as ordinarily prudent bank directors.
New trials were ordered in the cases
against two groups of directors. and
no error was found in the actions
against two other groups.
The majority opinion was written by
Judge Beach and was concurred in
in its essential features by Judges
Thayer and Wheeler. A minority. dis
senting opinion, was handed down by
Supreme Court Justice S. o. Prentice,
which was concurred in by Judge Ror-
aback
Damages of $390,000 were asked in
the four suits, which were tried be-
fore Judge William l.. Bennett in the
superior court. The groups were made
up according 10 terms of service. The
actions were brought by Norris s. Lip
pitt and Fred P. Holt, then bank COM
missioners, as receivers of the bank,
against the directors. for negligently
permitting the corporate assets to be
wasted, and for illegally declaring
4 s,,sl WI
to recover for the depositors for losses
sustained because of the misappropria-
ton of nearly 800, 900 by Converse.
The stealings, it was alleged, had gone
on for about thirty-nine years It was
alleged that the directors were re-
Fponsible because of neglect to exer-
else due diligence in their oversight
of the banks affairs.
The two groups of directors for
whom new trials are ordered are
those whose terms of service included
all or part of the period covering six
years prior to the institution of the
action, the six years being the time
limit prescribed in the statute1o linn
itations. The cases in which no error
was found are those of men whose
terms of service ended prior to six
years before the institution of the
suits.
Cases for New Trial.
The cases which will go back to the
superior court for new trial are
those against F. L. Ashley and others
and Ezra B. Bailey and others.
The co-defendants, with F. l.. Ash
low
Clark, George Glover, George M Mont
gomery, John r. Montgomery, Allen
Pease, and NJ P Robinson of Windsor
Locks, j. Warren Johnson of Enfield
and Charles F. Cleveland of Southing-
ton. Damages of $4,000 were asked
The co-defendants with Ezra B.
Bailey are George P. Clark, James T.
Coogan, George Glover, William
Mather. George M. Montgomery, John
r. Montgomery and Allen Pease of
Windsor Locks, and ]. Warren John
son of Enfield. Damages of $4,000
were asked.
In the cases against George P. Clark
and others and James T. Coogan and
others there will be no new trial.
The eo-defendants with George p.
Clark are James T. Coogan, William
Mather, John r. Montgomery and
Allen Pease of Windsor Locks and ].
Warren Johnson. of Enfield. The
damages asked were $1S0,000.
The co-defendats with James T.
Coogan and John r. Montgomery of
Windsor Locks and j. Warren John
son of Enfield Damages of $4,000
were asked.
Two opinions were written, one
concurrent opinion by Judge John X.
Beach and one dissenting opinion
by Chief Justice Samuel o. Prentice.
In the opinion of Judge Beach and
Judge Thayer, the statute of hmi-
tations operates in this case, making
the directors in the cases in which
error was found liable for only six
years prior to the institution Of pro-
ceedings. In this, Judge Wheeler dis
scented. holding that the directors
were liable for all the period OF Con
verses stealings
Chief Justice Samuel o. Prentice
dissented from the result in the cases
where error was found, and concurred
in the result in the cases in which no
error was found. He consurred in
that part of the opinion in which the
operation of the statute of limitations
in the case was upheld. In this des-
senting opinion Judge Alberto I.
Roraback coneurred.