OCR Text |
Show of the receiver, was compelled to pay, 1 arnl now neks to offset those amount. again.,! tin.. recivcr's claim t'i Ih money of the corporation which he eoncrtr-d to hl.s nivn um.1, but of I course he cannot do i STARTLING ACTS, OF LAWSON In the case of Carl C, Rasmusscn, receiver of the goods, property and effects ef-fects of the Superior Prick, Tile and Milling company, against David G. Lawson, Judge Howell this morning rendered a decision finding that the defendant, as secretary and treasurer treasur-er lor the company, has failed to ac count for the sum of SHIM'S which came into his hands as secretary and Uieasurer, and it was ordered that judgment be rendered against Mr. Lawson lor that amount. This is u case that has occupied the attention of the Second Distiict court for considerable time, and It has been characterized by a number of peculiar pecu-liar oituations and awkward transactions. transac-tions. "The plaintiff brought the suit for an accounting of the ninnevs oelong-ing oelong-ing to the corporation, which came Into the hands of the secretary and treasurer. The court states that the defendant, in the various transactions for the company, showed himself to be utlely Incapable of handling corporation nf- , fairs and could not at all tim rtls- I criminate between corporate and indi- j vidual expenses, but that withal, he was not actuated by dishonest motives mo-tives It was a matter of not understanding under-standing how to handle the affairs of the company mi the pait of 1h secretary-treasurer The question over 'which the greatest controversy arose was ihe accounting for $l,nu(i of the company's money received by the defendant." de-fendant." ' To Illustrate the inefficiency and misunderstanding the defendant had in the handling of corporate funds, the court commented as follows- "As an illustration of his peculiar ideas with relation to the uses to which corporate money could be put, 1 the following incident is exceedingly apt: To raise the money with which to buy bis-stock, the defendant sold certain real estate. A real estate broker charged ?2rj0 for making this sale, and the defendant paid him out of funds belonging to the company. "Startling as this transaction is, T am satisfied from tho evidence that-the that-the defendant is not intentionally dis honest, but his ignorance of his duties In a position of trust and his inabilitv to distinguish between his own money and that of the company is almost incredible. I cannot but sv mpathi.e with the defendant, because he has undoubtedly been the loser In his dealings with this company, he has unquestionably been the du"pc of two designing thieves by the name of Johnson and Cottrcll. who were the moving ' spirits in its management; but having accepted a position of trust in It, which be was in iiu way qualified to fill, the law must hold him to the same strict accouiitabiliv in the performance of ih" duties of that trust as if he wi re qualified to fill iL His example is a warning to others like him not to assume corporate po-sltions po-sltions for which they have no training train-ing or capacity, or in become entangled entan-gled in the management of corporations corpora-tions of which they are ignorant and in which they become the tools of designing de-signing men, and yet in which Ihe law eartnot excuse. their ignorance." "Another illustration of this: He hired a team and driver to the company com-pany at $4 per day, charging the company com-pany up with that amount, and yet. paid the driver with corporate funds. "He guaranteed the payment of certain cer-tain dobLs nf the company, which, in accordance with bis guarantee, he afterwards, af-terwards, long after the appointment |