New-York tribune., 1874-10-24
THE COURTS.

AN ASSAULT UPON CRIMINAL LAWYERS.
ARGUMENT BEFORE THE GENERAL TERN OF THE
SUPREME COURT ON AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY HOWE HUMMEL SHOULD NOT BE DIS
BARRED-SUGGEsTIoNs OF BLACKMAILING.
Some days ago THE TRIBUNE reported the
granting, by Judge Davis In the General Term OF the
Supreme Court Of an order directing Messrs. Howe
Hummel, criminal lawyers. to show cause why they
should not be dsbarred Yesterday was the return day
of the order and accordingly, there was long argu'
before the General Term with large body OF In
terested spectators and listeners. between A. Oakey
| Hail. as counsel for Messrs Howe & Hummel, on one
sde and Mr. Phelps, the DisrictAtorney on the other
As stated in THE TRIBUNE Adelaide ana VIII
| liam Beaumont were convicted in the Court
| OF Special Sessions, before Judge Dowling, on
| Aug. II, 1871, OF keeping O disorderly house,
and sentenced respectively to six and l2 months
| imprisonment In tho Pententiary and fne OF flCO
each The saumonts claimed subsequently that A. H.
Hummel. Mr. HOwes partner, thrust himself upon them
during the trial their COUNSEL and after their conyic
ton came them. and by averring that the firm OF
Howe Hummel could get them released, induced them
TO pay retaining fee oslOo; that writ OF habeas cor
pus was granted the next day aud on Aug 10 Adelaide
Beaumont was brought down to Howe's office and told
by him that II she would pay them 81 900 she should be
discharged on the following Tuesday She paid the
but before being discharged told that another
$1,000 necessary; that Cardoz0 and Dowilng each
and she refused TO pay $1,000 she went back
tothe Penitenary She was down wrts OF ha
beas corpus eight times but she persteny refused to
pay driven by the sickness OF her husband
she did pay 800 On Nov g. 1871, she paid the further
sum OF $780, extorted under similar representations OF
division of the money with Judges Cardozo and Dow
ling. On Oct T. 1871. she discharged by Judge Car
dozo without being taken before him or any judge or
court whatever, and her husband discharged two
| days later under the same circumstances As Howe
had repeatedly told her that her Imprisonment was
wholly Illegal and unjust and that there was no eVi-
dence to justify it, subsequently to her release sns ue
| manded from Howe return of the money He then
denied that any Of it had paid to Judge Cardozo or
| Judge Dowling, aud promised to refund the money
asking her at the same time to swear to an affidavit
that the money paid the case to the Court
| Of Appeals. She refused, and later Howe Hummel
returned $4,000 leaving balance Of $1,000 s"hen she
demanded that Howe threatened to kick her out OIL the
| Office.
Thus the suit by the Beaumonts against Howe &
| TIummel originated, application being maze 10
Judge Barrett in the Supreme Court for an attachment
10 compel the payment Of the $1,000 Judge Barrett dis
missed it, and the Beaum0nts executed release anu
dscontnuance. The last application for an order TO
| show cause was made by Thomas Dunphy. lawyer OF
this city, whom Mr. Howe evidently thinks very per-
sistent enemy of his 1t based on the aidavits OF
the Beaumonts and there two other charges one
Is that when Mr. Howe applied for admission to the Bar
he concealed from the Court the fact that as witness
in the trial of the murderer Rush aterward hanged IN
England in Isi9 he appeared in a dsrpputabe light
having been convicted OF felony in England, record
which is in the possession OF some persons in
tins city. This concealed from the Court through
| Howe's representing himself to be a man OF goou
character. The other charge ia that Mr. Howe swOre
that he was citizen OF the United States whereas there
was record at the time his declaration OF his Intention
| to become a citizen made only few months previously
| In the argIruent yesterday Messrs. Howe q Hum
mel through their sSnnss r sOtsa sdSsas ps Made
| against them as legal volubility admits Mr. Howe
says. in regard TO the Beaumons that ne ana nis part
have been persisteny followed by these people IN
threatened, attempted, and partly pcrfecteu ega pro
believe they would at any time withdraw their charges
against him II he would settle with money DuI ne na9
that for the sake OF avoiding annoyance, ,e ne had re-
turned part OF his counsel fees As TO the eaarge OF
Boston, July 1928 his parents being British suects
residing in Boston, which they leit ior Enganu arlng
three years OF and his parents died there n He
went through the process OF hatranhlaion @ ihl.nda
something more might be required OF him than MS
simple affidavit for the purposes OF owning real estate
felony, Mr. Howe, while denyi ing It, appends TO his am
and Mr. Hail. III his argument said that when Mr. Howe
was called q witness there, Rush. who conducted his
aiming hiIn. SAYING he had never heard OF Mr.
Howe before aud he then called on the press to publish
Howe's % Character might communicate with him. The
delay granted but the report showed that nothing
added that as this challenge TO all England
| remained unanswered, 1t fair to presume
| that Mr. H0we's character could not be attacked.
He added that 1t matter OF public n0tOrlety that
| when Mr.. Howe nominated for CITY Judge and ran
against exJudge RUSSELL (n0w deceased, party feeling
| ran very high. The partisans OF Mr.. Russel-the
counsel said nothing about Mr.. Russell hmself-brought
this accusation OF conviction OF felony against MI
Howe considering the intense bitterness Of the con-
test il any proof existed OF the truth of the charge 1t
| would have been brought forward then The counsel
| produced alldavits from policemen aud detectives
showing the character OF the Beaumons, which made
il was alleged, their statements even under oath un-
worthy OF credence and in conclusion ayerreI hat tue
| whole controversy against Messrs Howe and Hummel
arose from the malcvoence OF Dunphy. who was attor
| pey in the law suit against Mr. Howe, aud who had
| threatened to iDjure his character
Judge Davis the conclusion of the INT, speak
ing for himself and hs associates, said the Court could
not decide off hand ON these afdavs. IL would
be well understood that the investigation OF tue sub
| ject was put the District Attorneys hands by
order OF the Court thus being Withdrawn from
any private CONTROL with the express purpose OF pre-
venting 1t from being used for exorng any backmai
there was possibility fom the character OF the papers
that there might be effort to procure some sort OF
arrangement for private benefit, and this action had
that the inquiry might be perslstently car
| ried out. The Court would, Of course, examine the
papers to whether there was any necessity Tor
future and IL they thought that any allie
cation sufficiently met they would order such
proceeding might seem 10 them proper at u future
day.