The record-union., 1895-07-15
IT LOOKS VERY BAD FOR WHARTON.
Charges Against Him of Serious
Character.
Fraud Alleged to Have Been Practiced
by Him In His Capacity
as Attorney.

At meeting of the Sacramento Bar
Association on Saturday. besides the re-
port OF the committee appointed to con-
slider the charges of unprofessional con-
duct against Il. +. Wharton, an attorney,
an election for Assistant Secretary was
held S. Luke Howe and Ii. NJ. LaRue,
Jr, were placed in nomination. Howe
was elected.
Clinton L. White of the committee in
the Wharton mater, then announced that
Charles Z. Russell had sworn to an ac-
cusation against Wharton for uttering
| false af1idavits in the divorce cases OF
Addie Hoxie against Charles IIoxie, and
L. +. Wharton (the accusedl against
Hattie Wharton. Russell is Mrs. Whar-
TOMS brother.
Tho accusation in part recites that in
August. 1891. Mrs. Addie Hoxie en-
pl0yed Wharton 10 prosecute divorce
suit iOr hor from her husband: that on
| August 18th ha filed com plant against
| HOXle ia The superior Court: that IlOxle
| Was no. II lhe time, and had not been Tor
| more than two years next preceding the
| time the complaint vas tiled against nm,
a resident OF this county, anu could not
| ,
| and personal service OF the sum nmOuS
could not DO made Oh him in this county;
! that Wharton did not know OF Eoxie'S
| wherea bouts. but did know that he was
not resident OF the county; that the
! summons Ia the action was never served
| on HuXie, nor was copy OF 1t ever pub
| Used, nor did the latter ever appear in The
action, nor did the court ever obtain
jurisdiction over him; all OF which HuS-
sell. i'll his accusation against W harton,
! alleges the latter WAS we'll aware Oh.
The accusation further recites that on
| the lStn OF August W hartOu, n violation
OF his duty and OATH as all attorney and
| counselor at law, ana with intent to mis-
| lead the superior Court, and TO exhibit
such paper as genuine and true, prepared
! a false anu fraudulent affidavit. 10 which
! The name of Peter StOrtz was attached rs
| having sworn TO 1t, and which alleged
affidavit purported TO have been sworn TO
| before Wharton, as Notary Pubilc, by
| Storsz, setting forth IN substance that he
| (Stortz) personally served the summons
on Charles hoxle, together with copy OF
the complaint.
The statements in the affidavit are de-
clared Lc be false. and were well known
| TO be such by Wharton, and that StortZ
did not swear TO such affidavit, and his
| signature thereto was obtained by Nhar-
ton by the latter falsely ana fraudulently
|
lieve that he was appending his name to
a recoipt;that Wharton, well knowing that
| the alleged affidavit was false, filed the
summons with the affidavit IN the County
! Clerk 3 office, thereby causing the default
| of Hoxie to be entered in the divorce pro-
! ceedings the same AS II HOXle had been
served with the summons and had tailed
to appear ana answer therein within the
time allowed by law.
In his accusation against his brother
in-law, Russell further alleges that on
the 10th Of October, 1894, the case of Addle
HoNie against Charles HoXie was called
tor trial, and Wharton appearing for Mrs.
| Hoxie, produced the affidavit and repre-
sented to the court that it was genuine
and that il had been served on Hoxle,
thereby inducing the court and judge
thereof to try the case and TO enter de-
cree in favor OF Mrs. HoXle.
The second accusation against Wharton
is that on the Ilth of last May he COM
menced an action for divorce against his
wife, Hattie Wharton, and had sum-
mons duly issued directing her to appear
and answer the complaint; that 1t was
never served on her, nor was copy OF II,
or the complaint ever published, nor did
she ever appear, nor DID she waive the
service OF tie summons.
In this particular case Wharton IS
charged with having obtained the sigma
| L
davit to the summons setting forth that 1t
had been duly served on her. In this
case Wharton acted as his own Notary
| Public, as in the Hoxle matter.
Russell alleges that Wharton knew that
the summons had not been served on
Mrs. W BARTON, and that III order to OBJ
tain StortZ's signature TO the affidavit
| Wharton represented that he was ap-
pending his name as witness to a Will.
The case was called for trial and the al
legged affidavit was presented to the court,
well knowing, the accuSer alleges, that it
was false and that the summons was
never served Oh Mrs. Wharton. On the
showing made by Wharton the court
proceeded TO try the case and hear testi-
mony.
Russell concludes his accusation with
the following prayer:
"W therefore. accuser states that said Il.
L. Wharton i'll and 10y his acts in this ac-
cusation stated has been guilty OF mis-
conduct and has williully and corruptly
violated his oath and duty as an attorney
| and counselor at law, and therefore this
accuser prays that said Il. +. Wharton,
by the judgment OF this court, be re-
moved from the Office of such attorney
and counselor at law, or that such other
Judgment be entered as may be proper"
on the 10Th OF last month Superior
Judge i!inkson, in whose court the case
was Lrleu, EedU III open court II lelt6r Lnat
he had received from Mrs. Wharton. in
which she stated that she was never
served with summons III the suit tor
divorce brought against her by her hus-
band. Attached to the summons was an
affidavit siGued by Peter Stortz and
sworn TO before Wharton-who besides
being Il lawyer is a Notary Public-that
StoriZ had served the document on Mrs.
Wharton. Judge Hinkson then in-
structed the District Attorney to investi-
gate the matter and report the result Of
his in vestigaiion to the Bar Association.
: This has been done with the result that
Messrs. y. Solon Holl. Clinton L. White
and W. +. Harlow drew up the accusa-
ton against Wharton and verified by
Charles h. Russell.
Mr.. White said the evidence in the
HoXie case was more conclusive than
that i'll the suit OF Wharton against his
wife.
Mr.. White said that Wharton ap-
preached a member of lhe bar the other
day aud requested him to ask dir. White
TO use his influence with the Judge of the
court in which the accusation is to be
heard, so that in the event of Wharton
being found guilty be would be fined in
stead Of keinp uIsDarred.