The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1923-03-22

W oAOW BHdb n. vi. huSSSll III HdHQlliiS
the affairs of the Russell company, of
which he was formerly president, had
any intent to deceive the owner or
to feloniously embezzle funds of the
company, Judge John C. Slater in the
municipal court on Thursday after
noon just before five o'clock handed
down decision dismissing an en-
bezzlement charge against Russell
brought by present officials of the
company as the complaining witnesses.
The charge was based on check
drawn by Russell out Of the funds of
the company for $1015.75, it being
alleged that the money was used for
private purposes.
The hearing in the case was held
on last Friday at which time Judge
Slater after taking an entire day to
listen to the evidence took the mat
ter under advisement. While this de-
cision affects only one of the five
charges of embezzlement brought
against Russell, it is believed that
the others will be dropped inasmuch
as they are very similar in charac-
ter.
Decision Reviews Case.
Judge Slater in handing down the
decision reviewed the entire case
which is an outgrowth of troubles that
arose in the directorate of the former
Kenosha company. He cited that it
was undisputed that the defendant on
May goth, 1922, had issued the check
in question payable to the order of
the Commercial National bank of Fond
du Lac, and that as president of the
concern he had authority to sign and
issue checks for the use and benefit
of the company. He recalled that the
evidence had shown that the check
was issued to pay a personal note of
the defendant but also outlined that
at the very time the company owed to
Russell $4,000 for money advanced by
him and that he had instructed the
bookkeeper of the company to charge
the $1,000 in question off of his. ac-
count.
Condemns Methods Used.
Judge Slater severely condemned
the loose manner in which the af-
fairs of the company had been han
died, saying in part as follows:
THE testimony adduced at the hear
ing leads to the conclusion that the
officers and directors of the corpora
ton ignored entirely the fundamental
principles governing corporate man
agement, and assumed authority and
did and performed acts not warranted
by law or by the articles of incor-
poration, and which invariably lead to
disaster such as the president fixing
his own salary, drawing the check in
question to liquidate personal OBJ
igation and transacting corporate
business without any meeting or ac-
ion of the board of directors, and as
'uming the same authority they would
lave IN their own private business
md affairs.
There is testimony that the defend
mt even before the incorporation adj
anced money and raised money in
Promoting the contemplated incor-
Grafton; that no secret was made of
he issuing of the check of May goth,
922, and that the same and other acts
the defendant were recorded in the
ooks and records of the company, and
lade with the knowledge and assent
at least two of the directors be-
ides the defendant, and it was not
ntil trouble in the corporation arose
nd the books passed into the hands
one who was versed in corporate
Management that any suspicion of q
riminal nature attached to defend
mt so far as we are advised"
Likewise Condemned Defendant.
The court also did not condone the
cts of the defendant but maintained
hat the evidence failed to indicate
ny actual intent to take money fraud
lently. In this regard the decision
cad;
The defendant, as president of the
ompany, had some control of the
unds of the company, with authority
issue checks against said funds for
he use and benefit of the company
My; the defendant, as president and
n the name of the company issued
the Commercial National bank the
'ompany's check for $1,015.17, and the
ame was applied in payment of the
personal obligation of defendant to
aid Commercial National bank; true
defendant claims this one thousand
lollar loan from the Commercial Ma
ional bank was negotiated by him for
he benefit of the corporation, then
" about to be formed; assuming his
estimons to be true, this gave him
70 authority to issue the check in
question, and such acts when dealing
nth corporate funds merit severe cen
ure and condemnation even though
he, company may be indebted to the
fiicial for salary or money advanced
any other manner. The courts have
cid that failure of an employer to
ay his employees salary is no de-
ense to prosecution of the employee
or ENLIGHTENMENT.
This transaction was not secret,
ut made matter of record on the
.ooks of the company, and apparently
it'll the knowledge and assent of the
rectors of the company and when
e company, so far as appears, was
9avily indebted to defendant. The
,urts have held that although the
ansaction was done openly it is no
fense,"
yrt. AZ. l..sn..,. - II Ill