The Dickinson press., 1915-04-17
COURTS DECISION
IN EXCHANGE CASE
South St. Paul Live Stock e.
change Regulations Upheld.

The right Of the South st. Paul Live
Stock Exchange to discipline it's mem
oers for violating its rules and resu-
lations was upheld by Judge Michael
In ha Ading down a decision March 81
when the case of the Jas. R. Kirk Go.
versus the South St. Paul Live Stock
Exchange, to prevent the exchange
from collecting a fine imposed, was up
Tor trial in his court. The Jas. r.
Kirk Co. had been accused Of paying
rebates and having several solicitors
at work through the Northwest,
which 10 in open violation Of the rules
OF the exchange to which every candi.
date voluntarily %subsor1bes whom be-
coming a member.
The rules and regulations are 80
constructed Ii to make dishonesty i'm.
possible when rigidly observed. The
Kirk Co. having been accused of VIC.
latins the rules and regulations had
been cited to appear before the board
of directors Of the exchange for in.
v~estigation, which on account Of no
precedent ever having been estab.
hshed for the conduct of any investi-
cation, proceeded along lines that ap-
peared fair and Just, but which did
not meet the approval Of the court,
who decided that on account Of GER
tain technical irregularities in the
preliminary conduct Of the Ease there
was no proceedings, thus leaving it
open for the exchange to retry in a
moro regular name the pending
charges against the Kirk Go. The full
decision Of the court follows:
II don't think the court will ever be
in a better position to decide this
case than right now when the facts
and the argument Of counsel are fresh
In the courts mind.
~ have no difficulty In holding that
the provisions Of Rule IA Of this asso.
olatIon are valid. | think their evi.
dent purpose 10 to make for honesty
In tho transaction Of bueIneso.
"The disciplinary provisions in Rule
~. I think. furnish a reasonably plain
outline of what must be done when
charges are filed against a member.
Section 1 provides for the filing Of
the charges. Section 2 provides for
serving a copy Of the charges on the
accused and fixing a time for hearing.
Section 2 also provides that the board
Of directors shall make an examina-
ton of the charges. To my mind, If
this contemplates that the board of
directors are to make an ex-parte *
animation, it would so violate the
rules of natural justice as to be
against public policy and be void, be-
cause these disciplinary provisions go
directly to affect the membership and
property rights of the defendant in
| those proceedings. l don't believe,
however, that Is the correct construc-
| ton OF this rule. I don't think there
1s any difference in the word 'exami-
nation used in this rule from what
there is in the word trial used in in
surance bylaws. I think they both
contemplate the same thing, and, so
construed. the rule is evidently fair
and valid. That does not necessarily
mean that a trial must be surrounded
with all the technicalities and formal
tiles OF q trial in court. but it does
mean that It must conform to the es-
seatial features constituting a trial as
known to the law OF the land, viz, the
right to be confronted with witnesses,
the right to oross-examine them.
1.-THE court has no difficulty what
ever In finding that this board Of dI.
reotere acted In good faith, and that
Il believed II vas acting within the
powere conferred upon II by these
rules; but ! think Il 10 quite apparent
that tho board Of directors honestly
| mlotook their powers and f%unotlono In
the pren1leee.
1T appears from tho evidence and
the records that two witnesses were
examined in these hearings In the ab-
sonce and without knowledge OF the
accused. II also appears that the evi.
denoe upon which the board Of direc.
tors largely depended in arriving at
its judgment wa tho statement which
the committee Of the board obtained
from Mr.. Johnson. This evidence
l2 Il be Ouch-was taken without no
toe 10 the accused and without their
knowledge. So it seems to me that
there was such irregularity in the con.
duct Of this examination Or trial
Whichever 1t may be called) Id to
vitiato the Judgment arrived at. I
think there has been nothing done by
the accused in this instance to waive
those irregularities. In fact they seem
to have protested against the non-pro-
duction of the witnesses at the ex-
amination, and also objected to the
character of the evidence as hearsay.
"If ia not nacaaaarv to mass unon