| Show WAS NOTHING IN I IT I The Case Against A S Clark Falls Through NOT GUILTY OF EMBEZZLEMENT The Defendant Fully Exonerated His Action In the Premises Being Perfectly Just and Proper The examination of A S Clark a young man wellknown in this community on the charge of embezzling a Jot of 94 alleged to be the property c Mr Rush Warner a n insurance agent for whom the defendant defend-ant was employed as solicitor was held before be-fore Commissioner Pratt yesterday morning morn-ing Judge Powers defending and Mr Jritchlow and Judge Burrs prosecuting On account of the excellent standing of Ir Clark the case attracted considerable a ttention and his friends had the sat action of seeing him completely oxoner ted of the serious charge The evidence vas somewhat complicated but showed hat Clark had taken a note for 9i from H J Hayward in payment for a policy of 20O The note was made payable to lark and a he bad a half interest in it I I and as Mr Warner objected to taking notes j for long terms Clark discounted it at a I bank and lifted a joint note of himself and W arner which the bank held and immediately im-mediately informed Warner of the transaction action This was some time ago and when the parties dissolved tneir connec ton there was a disagreement over their accounts and the arrest followed Mr Rush Warner testified am in the l ife insurance business here The defend ant commenced working for me as solicitor i n August last and continued with me until December lIes w lIe-s ALLOWED TO COLLECT THE TIIEMIDMS for which I am held responsible by the ompany In November last Mr Clark ook the application of H J Hayward for a policy of 230 on which the premium was 94 I afterwards saw Air Hayward myself and got an additional policy for SaOO I asked Mr Clark about the premium pre-mium of 594 and he said he had taken a iota for it and had discounted the note at he National Bank of the Rerublic To Judge Powers Mr Clark was paid by a commission on the premiums On this premium he was entitled to 50 percent per-cent of the amount So had taken three or four policies prior to that time and aftei that be took one from Mr Ferris He claimed that he was entitled to some of the premium on the additional policy which I took from Mr Hayward We took a 5 10000 policy from Mr Coffin afterwards and tne defendant was to have 20 per cent of the premium Thero was another 10COu policy taLes j J from another Mr Coffin und the defendant i claimed an interest in tnat out I refused I allow It There was a policy taken from a Mr Price on which the premium was i about SloO and the defendant was to have 20 per cent of this I credited him with 1 J that on my books Tho defendant took a policy from Owen Phillips in which he was J entitled to 13375 which he received with the understanding that ho would refund if I the policy was not accepted by the company com-pany It was not accepted I the defen dant took a note which was of no value he would be held responsible for the amount He owes me now 219 which includes iny lY portion of the Hayward note also 13973 on the policy which was rejected When he went to work for me the agreement that he should HAVE THE ENTIRE COMMISSION on policies obtained solely by him and on policies obtained in conjunction with another agent they should divide the commission com-mission A J Hayward identified the note given by him to the defendant Prank Knox of the Bank of the Repub lie testified discounted the Hayward note for Mr Clark At that time there was a note of Mr Warner and ll Clark held by the bank for SoO Mr Clark took this note up when the Hayward note was discounted Mr Warner was recalled and testified that he signed the 50 note with Clark at the latters solicitation Ho did not know that Clark was going to use the Hty ward note to take up the other A S Clark testified When I went to work for Mr Warner ho aureed to pay me 50 per cent on policies ootained solely through my solicitation The first policy I took was from Mr Phillips on which the premium was 79 I got my share of this In regard to the Hayward policy Warner told me that he would not take a lot and in order not to lose the policy altogether I took the note and was charged with the amount of the premium by Warner Hay ward told me that he would take another policy for 2500 on the first of the year 1 told Warner of this and he went down to Hayward and cot this additional amount Of course I supposed under the agree meent that I was entitled to 20 per cent of the premium cent Judge Powers held that indep ndent of the fact that the indebtedness of the defendant to the complaining witness i there was any being a simple book account ac-count the defendant was a joint owner with Warner in the premium each owning an undivided half interest in it Under those circumstances a man could not em i bezzle joint property and the defendant must be discharged Warner has sought the criminal arm of the court in the hope of collecting a civil debt Judge Burris argued the case for the prosecution at length and Commissioner Pratt thou said that i was necessary in this case for the prosecution to show that the defendant appropriated the proceeds of the note fraudulently and with criminal crminal intent The defendant thought that under his agreement with Warner he had the right to discount notes made out to him It was evident from the testimony that he did not act dishonest and ho should be discharged |
