Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1893-05-29
NAPTHALY Is NOT.


ssh Francisco Paper
IAN order will be made that the
name Of b. F. Nap,haly be stricken
from the roll of attorneys and coun-
seiors of this court and that he be
precluded from prscticing ss such at
torney and counselor in this court"
The above is the conclusion of the
decision OF Judges Slack, Seawell and
Dainger6eld OF tho Superior Court in
the matter Of tho disbarmsnt of the
notorious Ban Nspthaly of police
court malodorous fame.
In this case Solomon Mitchell, the
proprietor of several fruit stands. il
tho accuser.
The attorney has been in hundreds
Of unclean scrapes which would have
disbArred him if they had been
pushed, but he managed to get out Of
oil Of them.
The history Of tho case IL reviewed
by tho court.
1t was shown that in September,
1892. Nap.baly called upon Mitchell
in company with q police officer,
who, however, know nothing OF the
purpose Of the visit, and represented
TO Mitchell that warrant had been
issued for the arrest OF bis daughter
on . charge Of obstructing the public
streets; that she would be arrested on
tho following dAy-which was Sum
day-and would be unable to procure
bail bonds on that day. Nap,haly
said that he WAS her attorney and re-.
quired $40 cash 10 deposit in court to
prevent her arrest.
The money was handed over to the
lawyer and he appropriated it TO hi.
. own use.
1t appeared afterward THAT Mich.
ellie daughter was in no danger oil
arrest Whatever, and that the none,
, was not needed for that purpose, Of
for any purpose whatever.
NspthsIy orally denied the charge
1t appears that Mitchell had frui,
stand near the park, which was at.
tended by his daughter.
He had difficulty with two Italian
rivals. and engaged Napthaly to pre-.
pare warrants for their arrest, paying
him: $6 for his services.
The Italians retalia,ed ny causing .
warrant to he issued on FRIDAY, Sep.
, tember 16. 1892, for the arrest oil
Mitchelps daughter Bertha, on
charge OF obstruc.ing a public street
Mitchell had expected that warrant
would be issued and was at the polio.
court At the time it was issued.
3 He Immediately went before +,
, judge OF that court and procured al
, order i'll advance releasing his dAugh
ter on her own recognisance. Tn,
case was to be called on tho morning
. Of tho next day Saturday, and Nap
Q thaly was engaged by Mitchell to ap
pear for the defense. Tho partiel
were in attendance at Court Saturda,
morning, but the matter was continued
without a hearing to the followin,
. Monday, when Napthaly procured tn
/ charge to be dismissed.
"Napthaly gives rambling accoun
Of the transaction and makes som
claim. which he attempts to hav,
oorroborated, that the money Was pal,
to him for services past and prospe Q
tive. Tho following is sample o
:. his testimony. When asked for wha
purpose he secured tho money h,
says: "lo compensation and back pay
It compensation for present aud il
}. future and back pay"
\. "lmmodiately afterwards, in re
, Spouse to the question when Mitchell
" says that you obtained $40 from bin
u on the representation that GU desire.
it to deposit as bail with tho clerk, h,
. is mistaken, is he not?' he answers
:. Yes, sir. 1t was simply security that
It would attend to his case and furnish
v the ball.
o "Again he is asked: did you tel
!. Mitchell there in his house that 70,
= wanted $40 to Immediately deposi
Q the same in court for the security O
# his daughter in the event of her arres
Y and to prevent her arrest on Sunday?
= To which he replies: No, sir. ! tolt
n him wanted tho $40 to Do security i
y it were necessary to put up bonds o
q cash ball.
!. "The evidence leaves no douI
Q money from his client through f.lse
4 hood and fraud and the perpetsatio.
J. of crime. His offense WAS not only
4 . crime, but . crime committed in tn.
. course of and affecting his professions
y employ ment, and he is therefore sub
J. ject to disbarment IS having violated
/, his duty to support the law without
! regard to tho question whether or moi
, no has heen convicted in 4 court Of