Evening star., 1926-05-08

ington it would be found ultimately
that the same rate would be charged
Il will ask you again II you are
willing to give back to the estate these
commissions?" said Mr.. Cans.
IF l can lawfully do So" corrected
Mr.. Fenning. This estate is In the
custody of the District of Columbia
Supreme Court. I am acting as an
arm of that court. I have always
obeyed any instruction of that court
and I shall Immediately comply with
any order. I have heard that this
question may go to the Court OF Ap
peals. It would not lie in my mouth
to question any order in this case
shall comply with any order the
court issues
but you still haven't said you are
willing to let the estate get the benefit
OF the commissions" insisted Mr.
Cans.
''It could not be done under the law, u
emphaticaliy replied Mr.. Fenning.
The attorney cited the case of
Magruder VS.. Drury ard interpreted
1t as holding that the estates must be
given all benefits which they produce.
Mr.. Fenning replied the bond commits.
sion question is not analogous. and at
this point he declared the counsel was
making him argue the case legally.
Refuses to Argue Case.
II am on the stand to give informa-
tion-not make a legal argument" he
declared.
Then it means you are not willing
to concede the profits to the estate?'
asked Mr.. Cans.
mo. it does not" Mr.. Fenning re.
piled.
Then without submitting it to the
court. are you willing to let 1t go to
the estate if 1t can be done legally?"
Under the law, that cannot be
done" insisted the Commissioner.
We'll If it can be legally done, are
you willing to do so?'
At this point Mr.. Fenning appealed
TO Auditor Davis. declaring he had set
forth his position clearly. Mr.. Davis
agreed, asserting he understood Mr..
Fenning to say that he would not OBJ
ject to giving the AdoIph Adler estate
the 25 per cent commissions on
premiums paid if he thought he could
do SO legally.
Grilled By Davis.
Mr. Davis inquired of Col. Fenning
when the arrangement by which he
received a commission from the bond
ing company on fiduciary bonds be.
gan. Mr.. Davis said he was not limit
ing his inquiry to the Adler case, but
in any similar case.
Was it prior to 1920?" inquired the
auditor.
II would say" answered Col. Fen
ming, that for a short time prior to
1920 I had an arrangement with the
Chicago Bonding Co., which went out
Of business, and then made the ar
rangement with the United States
Fidelity and Guaranty Co"
Gould you give the exact date Of
the arrangement with the Chicago
company"
as my file, being an old ore, was de-
stroyed, but it was comparatively
short time before 1920"
when, if at ALL asked the auditor,
did YOU cease to collect such COM
when the suggestion was made
two months ago that such practice
was under criticism, / notified the
company to cease sending ME any
commissions. I believed then, as now.
that it was perfectly legal, but be-
cause il had been criticized | notified
the company to discontinue the ar
rangement until the matter was set
tied have received no payments
during March and April.
Have you received anything in
May?" asked the auditor.
No said Mr.. Fenning.
Questioned on Charges.
Attorney Cans then resumed the ex.
animation of the witness by asking
about a charge for visiting the ward
in New York. Mr.. Fenning explained
that it was customary when visiting
a ward who was not too far distant
to charge one-half the expenses of the
trip. He usually arranged, he said,
to time such visits when he had other
legal business at or near the place of
confinement of the ward. Thus he
was able to keep down the costs, he
stated.
Cans wanted to know if Fenning
saw the ward and conversed with him.
to which the witness answered in the
affirmative. but said Adler has little
and he never talked very
much to him. 1t is, however, good
plan, he suggested to see the ward
and note his condition even If he can
not converse well, suggested Mr.. Fen
ming.
a. ~