The record-union., 1895-08-13

AS it is necessarily conceded that the sum-
mons was not in fact served upon either
HOXie or Mrs. Wharton the theory of the de-
fendant is that StortZ practiced fraud. or,
in parlance common as it is expressive
''put up Il JOB" upon Wharton by pretending
to serve the papers and swearing tnat he nau
served them. 1t is impossible to conceive
motive for such deep and hazardous scheme
upon the part Of a man like StortZ against q
man like Wharton. There does not appear
to have been any ground for enmity or dls
trust on the part OF either. period OF nine
months intervened between the supposed
"jObs,' during which nothing unusual oc-
CURED between them-no resulting adVan-
tage or profit to StortZ, and no INJURY 10
Wharton. 1t is asking too much from
human confidence or credulity to accept this
proposed suggestion; and Yet, upon con
sideration OF the whole case there Is no al
tentative perceptible to my mind but to &C
cept or reject 1t.
My conclusions are that each of the accusa-
tiOns are sustained by the evidence to such
degree that no reasonable doubt of their truth
can exist.
First-That Z. F. Wharton in August, 1894,
as attorney for the plaintiff in the suit OF
Hoxie vs. Hoxie In the Superior Court of
Sacramento County knowingly procured
pretended and fraudulent affidavit of service
of process in that case, and, with such
knowledge, used the same in procuring an
entry of the default Of the defendant
Second-That said 4. f. Wharton in May,
1895, in the suit of Wharton VS.. Wharton IN
the superior Court of sacramento County,
being an action for divorce in which the SAID
H. 4. Wharton was plalntlH ana was MS own
attorney and Hattie Wharton, his wife, was
defendant, knowingly procured pretended
and fraudulent affidavit of service OF process
in that case, and, with such knowledge, used
the same in procuring an entry OF the default
OF the defendant.
Third-lhat said u. T. Wharton in the suit
of Wharton Wharton last mentioned, as
said attorney for the plaintiff on the 24th
day OF May, 1895 in the said superior Court,
well knowing that said suit was not then en-
titled to be heard, by reason OF rule OF court,
of which said Wharton was fully informed. re-
quirng the hearing OF defaut divorce cases
to be heard not earlier than ten days after
entry of the default did attempt in open court
! to mislead the court and the Judge thereof oy
falsely representing said case to be properly
ready for hearing, and by such representa-
! tionS did succeed in inducing said court 10
| enter upon the hearing OF SAID SUIT Whlcn at
| tempt was frustrated by the Judge OF sald
| court after said Wharton had been sworn as q
| witness on his own behalf upon the discovery
| by him that but one day had elapsed since the
| entry of the default; said attempt was also
| fraud upon said court by reason OF the 1act
| that said Wharton, us herein before stated
! then well knew that the summons In SAID
| suit had not been served upon the defendant
| therein
| It's therefore ordered and adiudged that,
| by reason of the gravity of said ohenSes, the
name of said H. F. Wharton be stricken from
| the roll of attorneys and counselors OF TINS
| court and that he be precluded from practlc-
! ing as an attorney or counselor in all the
| courts of this State.
A. Z. CATLIN, Judge.