- 27 -
lived beyond their means. There is certainly no showing that
Lawson or Wright received nearly $500,000 from the 282 checks.
Mr. Reaves' claim that Lawson never had authority to endorse
checks for Reaves Livestock is inconsistent with the fact that
Lawson endorsed some of the Lumberton Auction checks. Mr. Reaves
authorized Ballard to permit Lawson to endorse third party
checks. The recorded telephone conversation also shows that Mr.
Reaves authorized Lawson to endorse checks.
Petitioners contend that the recorded telephone conversation
shows that Mr. Reaves did not receive the cash from the 282
checks and that Lawson embezzled it. We disagree. During that
conversation, Mr. Reaves acknowledged that he had received cash
from Lawson when he advised Lawson to say that Mr. Reaves needed
the cash for business purposes and that Lawson did not know what
Mr. Reaves did with the money.
Petitioners contend that Lawson could not have given Mr.
Reaves the cash from the 282 checks because Mr. Reaves and Lawson
were rarely in the office at the same time. We disagree. Mr.
Reaves and Lawson were together sometimes, such as when Lawson
and Wright gave Mr. Reaves the weekly financial report of Reaves
Livestock, and when Lawson and Mr. Reaves played poker.
Petitioners point out that Lawson initially misled Bozeman
about the 282 checks. We believe Lawson adequately explained why
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011