Evening star., 1926-06-14

this case may go to the Court Of Ap-
peals l am going on record as say
| ing that 1t would not lie in my mouth
! to question any order that the Su-
| preme Court Of the District of Co
lumbia may make In this case. If the
! court gives me an order along the
! line you have indicated with respect
| to any feature of this estate l. shall
| comply with it without question and
| immediately
I'VE confidently assume that the
| only question connected with the ad
mitted fact that Mr.. Fenning received
commissions on his bond premiums
at all material to this committee is
whether or not his action in that re-
spect was criminal or fraudulent. On
this point we are entirely content to
rest upon the District Supreme
Courts decision rendered within the
! week"
Denies Charge Of Fraud.
After quoting from this decision
and discussing it. the brief emphasizes
| that part of it which states:
"The evidence in this case does not
| justify the view that Mr.. Fenning In
| tended to perpetrate a fraud or to
profit at the expense Of the estate
committed to his hands. The evidence
! shows, at most, a. mistake of judg-
| ment or misconception of what his duty
| required Of him
"The evidence in this case does not,
| in the opinion Of the court, reveal
any fraud on Mr.. Jennings part,
nor does it reveal any gross negli
| gence. Indeed, as to the latter. no
| such contention is made. There is
| no evidence in the case that there
[ was a dollar of loss to the estate of
his ward, no evidence that he did not
! keep the accounts in a clear and
proper manner, and. indeed, nothing
| is revealed in the evidence in the
case that could be said to reflect upon
duties as such, except that which is
| involved in the question dealt with
under the first exception"
The brief declares further;
1T is respectfully submitted that
| the foregoing decision by a United
States Court having Jurisdiction Of
the matter disposes Of the only phase
| Of the bond commission question
| which it is necessary or appropriate
| for this committee to consider. As
| stated we have transmitted to the
| chairman of the committee a certified
copy of the full text of Mr.. Justice
Siddons' opinion. In addition to the
above quotations reference to that
I opinion will show the courts descrip-
| ton of Mr. Jennings testimony as
! unqualified and candid
Refers to Quoted Case.
| Discussing one Of the points, made
| continually throughout the hearings
| by proponents of the charges to the
effect that Mr.. F'enning quoted the de-
| cision of the Court of Appeals in the
| celebrated "Magruder VS.. Drury'
| case. despite the fact that the Su
| preme Court had overruled this de.
cision, the brief declares:
"' 1t is unnecessary to here
| review Magruder VS.. Drury, (255 U. S
| 1867. to call attention to the reiterated
error in the statement that this de
cision was called to Mr.. Jennings at
| tention by the auditor of the court In
| the Hoff case in 1915, despite the fact
| that the auditors opinion. put in the
record of this committees hearings
| shows that that officer only cited and
| quoted Magruder vs.. Drury (37 App
| ID. G. 519), plainly showing that the
auditor was as uninformed as was
| Mr.. Fenning on the point that the
| Supreme Court had reviewed and re-
versed the Court of Appeals decision
| in that much discussed case; nor need
| we argue the Interpretation OF section
| 65i of the District of Columbia. Code
| or meet the untenable contention that
while a company that insures against
| loss by fire is an insurance company
| one that insures against loss by life
| is an insurance company, one that in
sures against loss as a, result of acci
| dent is an insurance company. one
that insures against loss resulting
| from casualties is an insurance com