Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-10-04
THE DISBARMENT CASE.
THE LOCAL COURT REVERSED.

THE LOCAL COURT REVERSED
Judge Paftersons Opinion Not Sustained
the Supreme Court.
PITTSBURGH, Pa, Oct. 4, 1880.
l!aeiama. and Hensel,,- The opinion of tn
supreme court in your disbarment cas-
was fled at the meeting of the court her
this morning. Judge Patterson was re
crsed no dissent. Lancaster county t
nav all costs. MALCOLM HAY.
THE OPINION.
Delivered Isy Chief Justice Sharswood.
BY Telegraph 10 IsTELLIGEScEE. .'
PITTsBURGH, Oct. 4.
Following is the opinion in full iilet
here this morning at the meeting of tht
supreme court:
Erparte .Steinman and Hensel. Erro1
to quarter sessions, Lancaster comfy.
SHARswOOD, c. }.
The record before us has been brought
up by writ of error under the act OF
Assembly approved May 10, 1879, G0GG, ell
titled San act regulating proceedings
against attorneys at law in this common
wealth - It provides that in all cases of
any proceedings in any court Of this COM
monwealth against any attorney Of said
court for unprofessional conduct as an Off
Ger of s,lcl, court, said attorney shall
he entitled to writ OF error from the su-
preme court of this commonwealth, as in
civil cases, to said court from any judg-
ment, order, or dcc,ce of said court against
him as such officer, which writ of error
shall remove the records and all the pro-
cecdings therein to the supreme court of
this commonwealth, and it shall bc the
duty of said court to review
the same dc nOtv, and the complainant
shall have the risI.C to offer new testimony
by deposition or otherwise as said supreme
court may direct AID, upon hearing, said
court may modify reverse or affirm said
judgment. order or decree OF the court be-
, ow as the justice ofthc case may require
Other provisions are added as to the hear
ing of the cause in any district, and giving
it preference over all other than homicide
cases, and as TO tho costs, all of which, to
say the least. are unusual. The remedy
by writ Of error, which properly requires
two parties, is certainly not the best
which could have been devised: and
what is meant by reviewing the
case dc noco is not very intelliSible
unless it be from what follows-that the
court is to hear any new testimony which
may be offered 10y the complainant, but
not 10y The court below or any other
parties If there can be any other.
On the whole it is a curious piece of lc2is-
lativc patchwork. How far the provision
that this court shall hear new testimony
and decide the case as if it was 4 new one
is consistent with that article Of the con-
stltutiOn which prohibits the SUI
,,reme court from the exercise of
any original jurisdiction except in
few specified eases, is aquestion which
does not arise, as the controversy here is
presented fully in the record, and we are
not asked to look out of it. The COM
plaiI,ants were members of the bar of Lam
caster county, and were also the edi-
tors Of Il newspaper published there
they printed in their paper al article very
severely rejecting upon the conduct Of the
court in Il certain prosecution in the quar-
ter sessions in which the defendant
had been acquitted on an indict-
mcnt for violating the liquor law.
It charged that the acquittal was
secured by prostitution of the ma
chincry of justice to serve the cxigencies
Of the Republican party" and added that
as the judges belonged to that party
the court was ''unanimous-fOr once-
that it need take no cOSnizancc of
the imposition piacticed upon it and
the disgrace attaching to it," We may
safely assume that it meant 10 charge, and
did charge, that the judges had decided
the case wrongful!y from motives Of pcliti-
cal partisanship. We have 10 hesitation
in pronouncing such publication to be a
gross libel on its face. Nothing can
he more dissraceful, not even
perhaps that of direct bribery, than such
an imputation Oh the motives Of Judges in
the administration Of justice. The court
thercupon sent Cor the complainants and
On their appearance and taking upon
the responsibility of the publ
cation in question, entered rule upon them
to show cause why they should not be dis |
barred and their names stricken from
the list Of attorneys for misbehavior in
their offices as attorneys. To these rules
they appeared and put in an answer re-
spectively and the rules were afterwards |
made absolute.
Many objections have been made to the
proceeding which we will not stop to con-
;ider;wc cntcrtainnod oubt that 4 court ha S |
without any formal complaint |
DR. petition, upon its own motion, to strike /
he name Of an attorney from the roll in a
proper case, provided he has had reason
lble notice and been afforded an opportu-
lity to be heard in his own defense.
No question can be made Of the power of
c ourt to strike member Of the bar from
he roll for official misconduct in Or out OF
ourt. by the seventy third section Of the
ct of April IA, 1884, GO, 354 it is expressly
nactcd that "if any attorney at law shall
himself in his Office of attorney |