Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-11-14
THE HUTCHINSON CASE.
rLooHs as rHoUGH HE WILL
re vlNDICArED,


Galveston Tex, Noy ~ Tho apph-
cation of Albert \, Patrick, q prncllc-
Ing attorney OF New York. for the dis
harmunt Of The Hon. u, c. Autclcspn,
member Of congress mud prominent mrm
hdl, NJ the bar nj Houston, Texas, came
up for hearing hriorr Judge BoHrmNn.
III the United Suites circuit court AZ
10 oclDrh ihls morning The court room
was packed. Among the spectators were
Judges ul the court 0i civil appeals, anu
many prominent momhcts 81 the CAT
weston and Houston bars Mr. llntcho
son appeared with his vounHe and an.
bounced rcndy ana filed nn answer deny
hg Ia toto lhlt ho was guilty Of amy
"grusHly Immoral and lmprnfcsHi0nhl
acts and misconduct MS 10 convict hlm
Of being @ person Of hnd mornl char
meter and utterly unit 10 rrinnin ~ an
attorney aud counsellor OF ihis court,
as alleged la The realtors petition. lie
further drnicl and denounced as will
fully anl nmlieion-y inise. the state
mont that he WIS guilty Vt ANY nnpro
frssldunl pr diAhOnornhr rnndnct in The
litigation of The l1ouat0m East md West
Texas RAILWAY company by which he
WIS employed ns attorney for the rail
way company aud h0udholdera,
That IN al his acts iu that litigation he
lid nothing hut what amy hunnr1hrl
ultnrnry would have done 90 protect
and conserve che Interests VI bis clirnta
IVY ylHp W'e nWnVl Wy wy l'5llor'
iNll'h; VINO, lh US a'ilil",hi ul laVlN'
iimde me SUM Anegauuhs lA were ohl'
hrMrd in his application ipr the di4hlr
ineut Of iimchcs0n, filed November 4,
aud at the conclusion Of bis statement
unered ~ evidence VI lbe lrc9rls Mhlch
BIZ olaimcl would bear uiil all ihe allie
cations lie had made ngniusi lluchc-Du,
and SHOW TINT hr onll ,p be diahlrrrd.
With this he rested his ease. He was
then nlhrrl an hr stand ana during h4
examination fhe iari was urlrinprd illt
~ hgd MED similar pfporrnliiNs hgilnst
Hutchinson ~ lhn supreme court ni ihe
'hilrI Slul- as w pin nNnlh'y OF
Joel A.. NpcrNy' OF New lpfh, ~ whose
insumuon cue proceedings minr' me
supreme court were began ~ inifick,
A. fhe conclusion o. fgllrkH testimony,
Judge boatlnNh asNed N1m opinion o.
Judges Hnfnlt AFu llN14hb OF
the rouri ~ rlNl lp-
paih ana several radins
attorneys, wrihcr u was right or pr0fes.
sional either ~ the .rfiies Of law or Of
professional ethics for nn attorney a.
the bar rlniming 10 be M nniicnh curin
10 lle proceedings To drilinn or bee
smlrrh The CHARACTER % q Fellow mem
Dor az the bar when the proof dlsclos
es that he II enip'Oycd and IN earning
fee for himself
Al who were Intercepted answered
that such conduct was at least repre-
hcnsilde " not nnprofessi0nal In q per-
son appearing ns an amieus curla. Judge
Bunrmm thprenpon made this ruling:
'"l'he court suggests that Il IL NOT right
or professional either IN the rules ~
lnw or professional ethics for IN at
torney at the bar claiming 10 be an
nmlana cnria to file PROCEEDINGS 10 de
fame or bcsinlrci the character Of d
follow member Of the bar when Tho proof
dlscloses that he "a employed and Is
earning d fee for himself. that this snp-
gestion " more fOfoihie when such pso-
ceednge nre insiignted dRninst lawyer
whom the COLOMBIAN shows 10 be defend
mt IN 4 subj then pending In this conrt.
~ down for subsequent day and IN
Vhich The relnior is one N ihe counsel.
iiie suit being one ia which The acts Of
tiie lawyer sought 10 be DISCHARGED would