Evening star., 1926-06-11

own use and never has returned to the
estates of his wards, have been en-
bezzled, because section 841 of the
Code Of the District Of Columbia has
been in effect since the code was ap-
| proved on March 3, 1901.
| I'm the case Of Woodward vs. United
States (28 App. d. c., 323), the court
| charged the jury that although they
should find that the defendant had no
intent to convert the money to his
own use, when he afterward failed to
return 1t to the owner, the jury would
be justified in finding from that fact
alone that he converted it to his own
use. That principle was approved by
the Court Of Appeals in that case. and
1t was only because, among other
things. that the indictment failed to
lay the venue in the District of Colum-
bia that the case was reversed.
us Is settled law in the District of
Columbia that the question Of intent
to defraud Is not a material element
in the crime OF embeZZlement and
that the Government Is not required
to prove an intent to defraud at the
time Of the wrongful conversion Of the
money. See Patterson VS.. United
States (39 Appeals, d. c., p. 84).
Answers Fenning Claim.
'Mr. Jennings persistent excuse for
not returning premiums illegally held
to the estates Of his wards has been
that his conscience would not permit
him to violate a pretended application
of a section Of the code relative to re-
bates. In the case of Barney VS.. Saun-
ders Q6 Howard, 542) dishonest and
negligent trustees had made a similar
excuse for not paying certain usuriOus
interests to the estate Of their wards.
They had been lending on trust funds
at usurious interest and keeping the
usurious part Of the interest for them
selves. The Supreme Court of the
United States said:
They cannot be allowed to aver
that the profits made on the trust
notes should be put in their own
pockets. because they were unlawful
gains, for fear that the conscience Of
the cestui que trust should be detiled
by the participation in them. To in
dulge trustees in such an obliquity of
conscience would he holding out i'm
munity for misconduct and an induce
ment to speculate in trust funds and
put them in peril. 1t is well settled
principle OF equity that where a
trustee. or one standing in flduciary
character, deals with the trust estate
for his own personal profit, he shall
account with the cestui que trust for
all the gain which he has made
"It is pathetic that Mr.. Fenning.
who has plundered the estate of so
many insane veterans, should feel a
pang Of conscience in returning to
their estates money that he has un-
lawfully taken out of premiums on
bonds which his wards paid for be-
cause he might defile the conscience
Of his wards. ."
Sales to District Cited.
Testimony has been given before
this committee relating to purchases
by the District of Columbia from
Rudolph, West & Co. of an enormous
quantity Of supplies. which matter is
relevant. because If these purchases
are in violation of law Commissioner
Fenning is as culpable as Commits
sioner Rudolph, from whose firm the
purchases have been made.
I'm the past year more than $72 900
of supplies were purchased by the
District of Columbia from the firm of
Rudolph, West & Co., under contracts
entered into with that firm by the
Board of Commissioners, Of which
Mr.. Fenning is a member All COM
peting contractors were unable to get
contracts for more than S13 900 worth
Of supplies. Commissioner Rudolph
has admitted that he owns one-third
of the capital stock Of Rudolph. West