The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1891-01-26

Now comes Charles +. Hanlon, an attorney
and counselor of this court, and brings this
accusation against Charles L. Tilden, and for
causes OF accusation states:
THAT said Charles L. Tilden was at all the
dates and times hereinafter mentioned
and now is, an attorney and counselor of this
court.
THAT heretofore, to wit, the 5th day of
December, 1890, at the City and County OF
San francisco, State of California, the said
Charles L. Ti!den did steal, take, and carry
away from the Office and possession OF this
accuser, and by force and arms and without
the consent of this accuser, Il certain valuable
paper anu undertaking for the payment of
money, that is to say, II certain Undertaking
of the firm of Tilden L Tilden, of which the
said Charles l.. Tilden is a member, for the
payment unto said Charles +. Hanion. as
attorney for the plaintiffs, in the action
hereinafter mentioned, for the sum of
500 to be paid as penalty costs upon the con-
sent of said Charles 4. Hanlon, us attorney
for plaintiffs, to q continuance of the argu-
ment of Il certain demurrer in an action then
pending in the Superior Court of the City and
county OF San Francisco, State of California,
in which William H. Carpenter, Harry s. Car
penter and Thomas Carpenter were plaintiffs,
and O. NJ. Schaff, NJ. L. Wilbert William s.
Arnold and NJ NJ. Donovan were defendants.
THAT said Charles L. Tilden did so with the
felonious intent to steal, take and carry away
from the office and possession of said plaint-
ihf's attorney the said paper and undertake
ing. CHARLES Il. HANLoN"
Upon the filing of this accusation Mr. Tiltlen
was cited to answer it, and in response to the
citation he files an answer denying the truth
of the charge, and at the same time objects to
its legal sufficiency
His objection is well taken. The accusation
is somewhat ambiguous, charging II larceny
i'll terms, but describing the act II such man
ner as to leave it doubtful if anything more
than n treSpass is alleged.
Assuming, however that n larceny is
charged, this court has no jurisdiction TO try an
accusation of that character and it is not until
after an attorney has been tried and convicted
of a crime involving moral turpitude, and the
record of his conviction produced here, that
we are expressly empowered to remove or sus-
pend him for that cause. Code Civil Pro
cedure, Section 287)
But is Is commended that in such matters this
court must necessarily have an authority
more extensive than the mere letter Of the
statute; and to enforce this view the case is
supposed of an attorney VIGOROUSLY guilty of
an infamous crime, but acquitted of the
charge through some ScandalouS miscarriage
OF justice 1t is sufficient on this point to say
that no such case is before us and that it VIII
be time enough to decide it when it arises.
Even concediag that in the case supposed it
might be our duty to proceed against an at
torney in spite of his acquittai, we are very
certain that 1t is no part OF our duty to antici
pate the action of the proper trial court where
the attorney has not even been accused
Mr.. Tilden'S demurrer is sustained, and the
proceeding dismissed. BEATTY, G. j.
" We concur:
PATERSON, j.,
GAR0UTTE, j.,
DEHAyEN, j.,
HARRISON, J.,
SHARPSrEIN, j.,
MCFARLAND, j.