Evening star., 1926-06-10

| company III Nflcn ne WAN not al SoilCi
tor, the premium would have beer
the same.
No Hint of Compensation.
Justice Sddons said the court
| rpcordS do not show. or even hlnt
or suggest. that Mr.. F'enning was ir
receipt of compensation from Tho
bonding company representing. or
The equivalent of. one fourth Of The
premiums received by IL for becomin.4
surety on bonds or underta kings the
employment to do which was hrongh,
about by Nh Jennings efforts in its
| behalf. Nor may the court take judi
ciul notice of the asserted fact&tha
Nh tenning was a licensed solicitor
nr ascent of The bonding company. Such
! a license if issued. is issued by the
| municipal authorities and If neces
| Sary to be. shown as in existence in
a legal proceeding must be proved as
~ fact. See District Of Columbia VS..
! Petty. 3. App. d. g.. So 1t ia not
subject Of judicial notice in this
| court.
| Put it may be urged that. as the
| records OF the court show that Mr..
| f'enning had the power to execute
! bonds or undertakings for the bond
! ing company. that therefore the court
| mast assume he WAS compensated by
| The company for his trouble in eX
| ecuting his power, ard therefore
| should inquire what his compensation
| was the basis for it and how paid.
| But why should the court make such
| an inquiry? When such bonds or un.
| dertakincs are submitted to the court
| for approval It's duty in the premises
| IS fully discharged when satisfied that
| hey are in proper form, in the re
4 ,r.ith E,;A q Il
| qualified surety and properly exc
| cuted
| lit is net pretended in this case
! that either the auditor or the court
! was ever informed or had the slight
| est know ledge or notice that Mr.. Fen
| ming was receiving the compensation.
| or any compensation, from the bond
| ing company, which the evidence in
| the case shows foi. the first time he
| was receiving. except upon the at
| tenuated theory based upon the exist
ence OF the aforesaid power of attor'
ney. theory that does not stand the
! test Of simple reasoning
Committee" u Trustee.
Though called committee in the
| case Of the estate or estates of per
sons Of unsound mind. the care and
administra ton of which is under the
jurisdiction and supervision of the
court. the committee is in fact a trus-
tee as q guardian is a trustee. or as
an executor or administrator is
trustee. with all the responsibility and
obligation that rests upon such a trus-
tee in the performa nee OF his duties
as such.
And when confronted with the re-
auirement that he give bond for the
faithful performance OF his duties in
the character mentioned he, OF course,
must be held TO know what the law
OF truSteeship commands III such
relation. and so act in compliance with
its requirements as to leave no rea-
sonable ground for criticism of what
he may do. Ii is also proper to re-
mark that when finding himself in
this position with respect to the bond
that he gave under the order Of court
Of September 10, 1924. he was then
solicitor attorney or agent or the
bonding company which went on this
bond or undertaking as his surety and
entitled to receive, as between himself
and the bonding company. from it,
compensation based upon one-fourth
Of the premium paid to the bonding
company; q compensation which, he
contends. he could not allow or pay
to, for or in behalf Of any person,
firm or corporation doing business In
the District of Columbia and not
licensed. as provided by the said sec
ton 654 OF the Code. He therefore
confronted this situation: The pre-
MUM to be paid to any surety that
might 60 on his bonds was a charge
that would later be made and allowed
against the estate Of his ward. If he
accepted from the bonding company
norton of that nramlinl aO IN he
charged against his wards estate, he
could not report the amount so re
ceived by him, he contends, as an as
set or credit of the estate. for TO do
so would be to violate the provisions
OF the said section 654 Of the Code.
Faced Conflict of Dates.
And if it was his duty as commit
tee or trustee Of his wards estate to
account for tha money received or to
be received by him personally under
such circumstances, he faced a con
tiict Of duty as a trustee TO the estate
with what. he contends, would have
been a violation OF the statutory pro-
vision aforesaid forbidding such credit
Tor payment TO the estate. The court
does not find it necessary to pass
upon the intent and meaning of sec
ton 654 and the contention made in
behalf Of the exceptant with refer
ence to that section, but 1t must not
be assumed therefrom that the court
agrees to the meaning and interpreta
ton placed upon it by the exceptant
or his counsel"
In referring to 1.-The mistake of judl,
ment or misconception Of what his
duty as committee required of him, y
Justice Siddons said this Is 'empha-
q, ha I,x ho
port Of the auditor in the case Of
Edward F. Hoff. lunacy No. $3.50. that
Mr.. F'enning. the committee in that
case, himself submitted to the court
in the first instance the question
whether he should account for com
mission received by him in making
an investment for the benefit of that
other estate. The report Of the
auditor now under consideration BY
no means makes this clear. rs will be
seen by reading paragraph numbered
5 of his report in the instant case.
In doing this in the Hoff case, Mir.
Fenning observed the caution indi-
Gated by the quotation above from
Story, section 1875. He would have
avoided grounds for criticism had he
followed the course in the instant case
that he pursued in the HoT case
Auditors Reasons Set Forth.
The reasons for the auditors s action
in DENYING Mr.. F'enning any commits
sion whatever for serving as commit
tee or guardian, are set forth in the
report which Justice SiddonS quotes.
AS follows: ''One of the factors infiu-
encing the auditor in denying Mr..
Fenning any commission whatever in
the present account, is the fact that
practically only routine matters were
handled incident to this accounting y
Justice Siddons then said:
The routine matters handled were
the doing of those very things which
formed 81 mart of Mr. Jennings du-