The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-09-02
ATTORNEY SMITHS
PAPER BOOK READY
Is the Argument That Will Be Made to
Supreme Court.
AGAIN ATTACKS THE LOWER COURT.
History of the Case Rehashes the
Charges Made ut Various Times $
BefOre..He Furnished a Copy Of 1t
to the Attorneys on the Other Side
His Argument Would Fill Twenty
Five Columns Of a Newspaper.

| rive Columns OIL q newspaper.
Cornelius Smith has filed the paper
book in the famous case which recent
ly disbarred him from the Lackawanna
| county court
on Monday, June ], Judge Edwards
| handed down an opinion which was
concurred in by Judge Gunster. order
ing that Mr.. Smith be removed from
his Office as an attorney and his name
| stricken from the rolls of the court.
Judge Archibald on the same day wrote
a sustaining opinion. coinciding with
| the action of the other judges.
Mr.. Smith, after short lapse of time,
took an appeal to the supreme court,
and yesterday he placed in the hands
of the courts attorneys, City Solicitor
j. II. Torrey. T.. c. Newcomb and s. b.
| Price. copies of the paper book which
! he will file in the supreme court. and
| upon which the argument will be made.
| The book was prepared by Mr.. Smith
and Attorney A. II. McCollum, OF
| Montrose.
THOSE ACCUSING LETTERS.
In his paper book Mr.. Smith starts
out by giving copy of the rule en-
tered against him to show cause why
he should not be disbarred. This rule
was ordered by the court. because of
| two letters which Mr.. Smith wrote to
Judge Gunster, charging him with
handing down an opinion in the libel
suit OF Burns vs. Smith, and taking
| back the opinion at the instance Of Mr..
Burns and Nlyron Kasson.
In the second letter Mr. Smith
charged Judge Gunster with disposing
OF the case and then taking it back and
! turning it over to another judge. Judge
Gunster, prior to writing of the second
letter. told Mr.. Smith that he had not
done so, but Mr.. Smith said he had IL
on the authority of persons present in
court: and he added that he did not
| 'hihk 1t was fair or just for the Judge
| alter once disposing of the case to take
| Dack and turn it over to another Judge.
Inc iirst letter was written by Mr..
smith on Dec. 81, 1895, and the second
| one on March 13, 1896. Judge Archibald
appointed Attorneys Torrey, Newcomb
ana Price counsel to prosecute the rule
against Mr. Smith. April q last was
fiXed as the time to take testimony. The
case was not begun until the next day.
Attorney James Mahon conducted the
case with Mr.. Smith.
On the morning of the 2Sth the for
mer presented to the three Judges sit =
ting to hear the testimony, an apology
lor the letters, and he also filed an an
plication to have the hearing trans
1erfed to another county. The apology
was received and placed on file, and the
petition for change of Venue was re-
| fused The hearing went on and ar
guments were made on both sides Mr..
Smith made the closing argument in his
| own defence, and was vehement and
| eloquent in his style. On June 1 the
opinion was handed down dsbarring
MN. On July he filed a writ of error
and took the case to the Supreme court.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR.
The assignments of error on which
Mr.. Smith bases his appeal to the Su-
| preme court specify that the lower court
erred in refusing his prayer for a change
OF venue: that there was not sufficient
to constitute cause of action against
| him, because it was not alleged that he
did any act attended with fraud and
corruption; that he was not charged
! with being convicted or guilty of an in
famous crime: that it was not alleged
| that he was q person of general bad
| character for integrity such as shows
| him to be unsafe and unfit to be en-
| trusted with the powers of his profess
| sion; that the court under the consti.
| tuition and laws of the commonwealth
| had no jurisdiction to try him for the
| action set forth in the rule Mr. Smith
| excerpts to great deal of the testimony
offered against him at the hearing. and
| he charges the court with error in ad-
| hitting it as evidence.
| The history of the case as it appears
| in the book is merely a repetition of the
charges he at one time or another lodged
| against the court and certain officers of
it in confederating and contriving to
defeat the ends of justice in the Jen-
| nings case.
Mr.. Smiths argument, prepared by
| himself and Attorney McCollum, is q
| most exhaustive one. 1t covers sixty
| two book pages and would occupy about
twenty-five columns of newspaper. He
says that an attorney is an officer con-
| corning the public justice and is COM
PEELED to be an attorney for any man; by
his admission as such he acquires rights
of which he cannot be deprived at the
discretion of q court any more than a
physician can of the practice of his pro-
| fession, a mechanic in the exercise of
his trade, or a merchant of the pursuit
of his commercial avocations.
MAGMA CHARTA LAW.