Los Angeles herald., 1890-05-06

water on both shoulders, or ran with the
hare and hunted with the hounds in the
case. He is charged with having OBJ
tanned information from Bell and then
used it against him. The court seems
to have taken serious view of the mat
ter, as the decision following shows:
The opinion of the court is rendered
by Judge Patterson, Justices Sharpstein,
Fox, Mcfarland and Beatty concurring.
The conclusions are:
The state of facts leads to one of two
conclusions, either that the respondent
encouraged the commencement and
prosecution of a criminal charge against
Wells he did not believe to be Just, or
had no reason to believe was true, and
through motives of "passion or inter-
est" or that after his production of evil
dence tending to show the guilt of
Wells, and which in fact resulted in the
commencement OF prosecution of a
criminal charge, he undertook the de-
fense and procured the discharge of the
accused, although he entertained the
same opinion as to the genuineness of
the documents tending to show guilt
that he held at the time that the prose-
cution was commenced. He did not say
that he had changed his mind as to the
guilt or innocence of Wells and therefore
undertook to defend him. He found
that Wells had not in fact abandoned
or intended to abandon the defense OF
his brother, therefore he had done Wells
an injustice and desired to right him,
not because he had discovered that the
documents were not genuine or that
Wells had not participated in the libel.
No such excuse as this is offered. 1t is
admitted by counsel for respondent that
'It might have been wiser and more in
accordance with good taste if he had
declined to have any further connection
with any OF the cases except the neces-
sary defense Of his brother" We cam
not thus lightly excuse the respondents
conduct. 1t was not only breach OF
good taste, but was transgression OF
those ordinary rules of professional
practice which are universally recognized
as binding upon attorneys and coun-
selors, with or without statutory limita-
tions, if it was not a violation of the
express provision of the code with
respect to such officers OF the
court. While we do not regard the OF
tense as one of so grave nature as to
call for the disbarment of the respondent,
we think the practice should be con-
demned and that some penalty should
be imposed which will deter others from
following the same course. In deter
mining the penalty to be inflicted we
consider in mitigation OF the offense the
fact that the respondent was greatly
concerned on behalf of his brother, who
was in trouble, and that he naturally
felt friendly to those who had aided him
and unfriendly to those who had de-
serted him. His gratitude to Wells for
continuing to defend his brother doubt
less led him to assume position in the
case inconsistent with his relations to
the parties prosecuting the same.
1t is ordered that the respondent be
deprived of the right to practice as an
attorney and counselor in the courts of
this State for term of six months from
the date hereof.
Smaller Notes.
In the case of the Schallert-G -Ganah |
Lumber Company against D. V. Wald-
rem, Judge Van Dyke yesterday decided
for the plaintiffs. The case has refer
ence to material used in building.
John Mitchell, of Oceanside, is in the
tolls of the law again. He was exam
ined before Commissioner Van Dyke, of