The record-union., 1895-08-13
WHARTON Is NO MORE AN ATTORNEY
Judge Catlin's Decision Dsbarring
Him.
The Reasons Given by His Honor for
the Disbarment From Further
Practice in the Courts.

Judge Catlin rendered yesterday the
following decision in the proceedings in
ssituted by the Sacramento Bar Assocla-
ton for the disbarment of Il. +. Wharton:
It will be remembered that at the time
his application for divorce from his wife
came up she claimed that the summons
In the suit was never served on her as the
affidavit purported to show that il had
been, and the Bar Association took the
matter uD.
The accusation in this case is presented by
committee of the Bar Association OF Sacra-
mentO upon a complaint Verllled Dy one
Charles IL. Russell.
The accused is charged with having violated
his oath and duty as an attorney ana coun-
selor at law in this
That having on the 11th day of August,
1894, as the attorney for Mrs. Addie HoXle,
commenced for her an action in the Superior
Court of Sacramento County to procure q
divorce from Charles HoXie, her husband, ne
knowingly and WllIfully procured alse ALL
davit of personal service IN said county upon
said Charles HoXie of the summons In said
action. That said affidavit purported to pe
sworn to by one Peter StortZ before SAID
Wharton as a \ Notary Public; that said Peter
Stortz, whose genuine signature was ap-
pended to the affidavit, "did not in fact make
or swear to such affidavit, and his signature
was obtained thereto by the said Il. +. " mar
ton by the latter falsely and fraudulently
representing to and leading SAID StortZ 10 De-
lieve that he appendlng hlS name 10 u
receipt" That thereafter the accused used
said affidavit in said action Tor divorce lof
the purpose of proving service OF the sum-
mons, well knowing that no service had In
tact been made.
1t is further charged that Hoxie had not
been resident of sacramento County tor
more than two years, and that said w Wharton
did not know of the whereabouts or place OF
residence of said Charles HoXle, and did at
Dlnn nr1a
said Charles HOXie was not resident OF the
county OF Sacramento and could not be found
therein, and that personal service of the sum-
mons could not be made on SAID Charles
HoXe in said county"
A further accusation of offense of the
same character is made to the effect that on
May IL, 1895, Wharton commenced suit
In the Superior Court OF Sacramento against
his wife to obtain divorce, and on the same
day willtully and knowingly procured false
affidavit of personal service IN SAID county
upon Mrs. Hattie Wharton. his wife, OF the
summons in said action. The said affidavit
purported 10 be sworn to by the same PeIer
Stortz, the same day, before Wharton,
Notary Public and the plaintiff In the action;
that Peter StortZ did not in fact make or
swear to said affidavit, and his signature was
obtained thereto by said Il. +. harton by
the latter falsely and traudulently represent
ing to and leading said Stortz TO believe that
he was but appendlng his name as witness
to q viii, and said StOrtZ did not, nor did any
person on May IL, 1895, or at any time,
serve the summons in said action on said
Hattie Wharton, nor did said Stortz, nor any
one at said time or at all, deliver TO her Il
copy of said summons, or a copy of the COM
paint any paper or copy OF any paper in
said action or at all all which was at all
times well known to said Il. L. Wharton"
II is further charged that Wharton on the
23d of May produced said affidavit to the
clerk Of the superior Court, and procured the
default of the defendant 10 be entered, and
on the next day, in violation of a standing
rule OF the court that default divorce cases
should not be brought TO hearing until ten
days after entry OF the default (Of The exist
ence OF which rule he was informed sought
TO have the case heard; that ignoring said
rule, and tor the purpose of avoiding its pro-
visions, and of misleading and imposing
upon the court. said Il. f. Wharton repre-
sented to said court, and to the Judge thereof
that said action off, r. Wharton against Hat
tie Wharton was In all respects ready for trial" ,"
and further that the accused on the day last
named, the oath of May, employed in said
cause means inconsistent with truth, and
sought to and did mislead the said court and
the Judge thereof by artifice and a false state
ment OF facts,'' to enter upon the trial OF said
cause.
If these accusations are true 1t will be con-
ceded that there is no escape from the judg-
ment provided by the 299th Section of the
Code OF Civil Procedure.
The accused filed written un verified answer,
the substance of which is. in reference to the
HoXie case that he believed in good faith
that Stortz served the summons and COM
plaint personally as stated in the affidavit
and that he read the atli davit TO him at the
time it was sworn to; that he did not know
Hoxie or his whereabouts. nor did he know
that he was not in Sacramento County
at the time Of said service;" that
Stortz Uniformed him that he knew
the defendant in said suit, and un-
dertook to serve the summons therein" He
AYERS that he acted in good faith sin all uses
made OF said affidavit of service, and did not
endeavor to impose upon the court"
With reference to the divorce suit against
his wife, he makes the same averment of his
belief that StortZ hau served the summons
and of his good faith; that ''he did not try to
impose upon the court by calling up the case
before ten days had expired after default,
but acted in good faith, this) disregard of
the rule not being willful nor with bad mo-
tive"
The further answer is made as follows:
Further answering the Wharton suit mat
ter afant AYERS that an information was
lodged against him, charging him with fei-
ony, in producing to this court said affidavit
OF service as false evidence, and upon investi-
cation thereof by the Committing Magistrate.
Judge w. A. Henry July 90, / 1S95, said Judge
did discharge, acquit and hODOrably dis
charge afflant of any wrongful or criminal
conduct with reference thereto"
Some of the undisputed facts which ap-
peared in evidence at the trial may be men
toned before referring to those upon which
there is a conflict. In August, 1894, Whar-
ton was the attorney for l.. q. kamyer, in a
suit to obtain a divorce, as well as being at
torney for Mrs. HoXie in her suit for q divorce.
Kamyer's suit was commenced on the 18th
OF August, and Mrs. Hoxies on the 18th OF
August. Kamyer intending to marry Mrs.
Hoxie. assisted her in her suit and employed
Wharton the attorney in the two cases
On September II, 1894, Selma kamyer, the
defendant in the Kamyer case, entered her