tsnamrr v. norms. 19
BABBITT v. Dorrnn.
(Circuit Oourt, N . D. Illinois. May 11, 1882.)
l. EQUITY—FRAUD—]h`VIDENCE.
Allegations of fraud should always be clearly proved, either directly or neces·
sarily, by circumstances which clearly lead the mind of the court to the conclu·
sion that a fraud has been perpetrated; and as the allegations of fraud in this
case are not clearly made out, the bill must be dismissed.
2. SAME—DIBMlSSAL or Bum. · -
Where a bill in equity is founded on alleged fraudulent business transac-
tions, and the evidence fails to sustain the charge, the bill must be dismissed,
though it appears that defendant owes debts growing out of the business as
to which the fraud is alleged.
Jlmrles Lawrence, for plaintiff.
F. W. Becker, for defendant.
Dnommcnn, C. J. In 1868, Dotten, the defendant, entered into the
employment of the plaintiif, acting as his agent in the distribution
and sale of soaps in the north-western states. He had at that time
a fixed compensation of so much a day, which, in ,1869, was increased;
and whenan office, in 1870, was furnished to the defendant, Dotten,
at Chicago, he still continued as the agent of the plaintiff at a further
increased compensation per day. Dotten made sales of the soap,
collected the money due, paid the freight and various expenses, and
made remittances from time to time to the plaintiff of the proceeds
of the sales. There was also a mode adopted by the parties of
advertising the quality and value of the soap which the plaintiff had
for sale by making a distribution of it gratuitously at houses, and in
different cities and towns of the north-west. The bill alleges that
Dotten, in the transaction of business connected with his agency, was
guilty of various fraudulent acts, by which the plainiif was cheated
out ofthe money that was actually due him. After Dotten had
become the agent of the plaintiff he formed a partnership with the _
other two defendants, Smith and Sherwood, in what is termed "the
veneer business/’ and the bill alleges that there was a fraudulent
conspiracy by all the defendants to deprive the plaintiff of what was
due to him, and that the firm of J. Willard Smith & Co. was used
for the purpose of eifectually carrying out the object of this conspir-
acy. It will be seen, therefore, the grzwamen of the bill throughout A
consists of fraudulent transactions on the part of Dotten, and of the
other defendants in connection with him. If the questions in this case
were whether Dotten, the defendant, was indebted to the plaintiff as