Evening star., 1926-05-13
FENN|NG IS DENIED
FEE AND DBONDCOST
BY COURT AUDITOR
Request for 10 Per Cent
Commission in Adler Case
Is Rejected.
MUST PAY FOR PREMIUM
OUT OF PERSONAL FUNDS
Davis Rules Guardian Had No
Right to Accept 25 Per Cent
of Surety Expenses.

Herbert l.. Davis. auditor of the
District Supreme Court, today denied
a request by Commissioner Frederick
A. Fenning that he be given 10 per
cent commission for acting as COM
mittee of Adolph Adler mentally
incompetent war veteran, whose es-
tate was transferred today to the
mans father, and also held that Mr..
Jennings acceptance of 25 per cent
commissions from the bonding COM
pany he represents was contrary to
the decision of the Supreme Court OF
the United States. Mr.. Davis also de.
clared that Mr.. Fenning should pay
the current bond premium Of $36.67
on his surety bond from his indi'
vidual funds"
Mr.. Davis decision was made in a
report to Chief Justice Mccoy of the
District Supreme Court in closing up
the guardianship of Adler by Mr.
Fenning. The veterans father has
qualified as committee in New York
and as soon as the assets of the estate
are turned over TO the parent. Mr..
Fenning will be discharged.
Follows Saturday Hearing.
The decision followed hearing held
Saturday before Auditor Davis at
which Mr.. F'enning personally declared
he did not violate any law or ruling
by accepting 25 per cent commissions
on bond premiums from the company
in which he was bonded as committee
of lunacy cases.
In the final accounting of the Adler
case, for which Mr.. Fenning asked a
commission of $l01 or 10 per cent for
services rendered during the past year.
appeared an item of $36.67 for bond
premiums" In the account as stated
today by Mr.. Davis. this item was
missing, as was the auditors fee. Mr..
Davis explained that he waived the
fee to save the mans estate from
further expense.
Report Is Accepted.
If the report of the auditor is ac-
cepted without change, it was indi-
Gated at the Court House today that
such action would pave the way for
general reopening of all other cases
in which Mr.. Fenring has received
commissions from the bonding com.
pany with the view OF reimbursing
the estates.
After reviewing Mr.. Jennings con.
nection with the bonding company and
referring to the fact he received com.
missions on bond premiums paid by
the estate he represented, Mr.. Davis
declared: 1T is strongly persuasive
to your auditor that he Fenning)
placed himself in a position in which
his personal interests were, or might
be. antagonistic to those of his trust
He referred the court to the jackson
VS.. Smith and Michoud VS.. Girod legal
precedents.
Auditor Davis referred the court to
the Hoff case, in which "Frederick A.
Fenning, Esq, was the committee in
the last.mentioned cause, and he was
not permitted to retain a bonus paid
to him by borrower Of the funds OF
Hoff, a ward Of this court. While it
was recognized that the said bonus
did not constitute deduction from
the body of the wards estate, that Is
not the legal test. 1t makes no differ
ence that the estate was not a loser in
the transaction, or that the commits
sion was no more than the services
were reasonably worth See Magru.
der vs. Drury, supra. In the Hoff
case the bonus was forthwith de-
posted as income Of the estate. and
the auditor has consistently adhered
to that ruling in each and every sub
sequent case"
Cites Bond Premiums.
with respect to commissions on
bond premiums received and retained
by Mr.. Fenning, in cases wherein he
Continued on Page 5. Column ~ :