New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-11-14
THE COURTS.

CHARGES AGAINST CRIMINAL LAWYERS.
THE APPLICATION TO DIsBAR HOWE 4 HUMMEL
BEFORE A NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. OF THE BEAU
MoNTs
An examination was held by Judge Emott
yesterday as referee in the matter OF the application
made TO the Supreme Court on behalf Of william and
Adelaide Beaumont TO disbar the criminal lawyers
Howe Hummel, on charges which have been pub.
lshed In THE TRIBUNE. The frat part OF the proceed
ings consisted OF arguments the Offer OF District;
Attorney Phelps to put in evidence papers which he
procured from John G. Hill, member Of the bar One
consisted of copy OF an indictment for msdemeanor
against William Frederick Howe and Elizabeth Graham
In the Court OF Queens Bencn London IN 1851 and the
judgment upon 1t; also copy OF an indictment for con-
sprng TO procure false bail be taken found against
W. F. Howe In the Central Criminal Court. A. Oakley
Hall denied the identity OF the persons and argued that
In any event the papers were inadmIssible.
The Referee said The conviction for msdemeapor Is
not admissible. The respondents are not called upon to
meet anything else except an indictment for particular
oGnse said to be In the hands OF Mr. Spencer convic
ton for felony, aogedin the petition would probably
oisquafy in this county. misdemeanOr might or
might not, but not being In the petition, exclude It,
Mr.. Phelps argued that the allegations in the petition
being information and belief, aud great deal depend
ing the character of tho msdoncanor, the scope OF
the inquiry shOCld not be limited but the Referee
adhered TO his decision.
Adelaide Beaumont then took the witness chair Her
story in substance that her husband and herself
tried by Judge Bowling in Special Sessions and
convicted OF keeping ds0rderly house. Mr.. Hummel
acted her SOL though she had not employed him.
After the conviction he obtained 500 retaining fee
aud assured her that her discharge could be procured
On the following Monday so taken from the Pcni-
teniiary TO the Dstrct-AtOrney Office, where she was
informed by Mr.. Hummel that the cost would be oo.
SIe paid the money and some days after che saw Mr
Howe and he said IL could not be done with loss than
5000 She refused TO pay that sum, and lie returned
hart ha Hon hflGI
the SlC00 to clerk III the Attorneys Office ana
a clerk OF the defendants she informed by the lie
PENDANTS that Judge CardOzO and Judge Downing and
others share In the aud that thcy wcro
TO get the smallest share and that her husbands dis
charge could he procured for nominal sam; but TO
ther sums, the charge Tor both amounting To $500
When the judiciary COMMITTEE suhpenaed her. the de-
fendan advised be- TO Keep out OF te way ana prom
ised hire and stock house for her and be rcspJpsDie
for the rest. She aftCrwArd asked them TO iul the
promise or return her money ana she was turned oUt or
Ofiee. Sne then byOugut action through Mr.
Blaukman and recovered s. eco from the defendants
On crossexaminaton the witness refused 10 give her
real name saying that her husband and herself had
changed their names. She admitted tnat Mr.. Howe had
advised her that the conviction by single Magistrate
Illegal and stated that he WAS bringing cases o.
that character TO General Term and the Court or Ap
peas and that she subsequently, heard that the Court
Of Apneals decided such cc1vicqps u lie liIgi sue
denied however, that tue fees we've given fof tiyug
her case 10 the higher courts and she dene1 tha sue
money gwen for that purpose bug was n0 50 used
she did sign sucn an affidavit sue ala not know mat
ii ABOUT.
William Beaumont the husband Of tho last witness.
produced a copy or alleged ali iavit which Mr. Howe
asked his wife 70 SIN, deAyog that the money was
gwen for any purpose except Tor the appear. . .
On tho cIosscxamIuatOn no credted considerable
msrrimeut by his answers to Mr. Hall. lie refused 10
tell where he born and declined to give his real
Tae District Attorney closed, and the adj
jOurned TO Friday.