The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-03-31
He ASKS FOR A JURY trial
Attorney Sr:ith's Answer in the Dis.
barrment Proceedings.
1T CONSISTS or TEN REASONS
Court Ordered tho Paper Filed and Fixed
Monday. April %, at o 4. NJ, Us
the Time for Hearing
tho Evidence.

Ten reasons were given by Attorney
Cornelius Smith yesterday in answer
Ia the rule directed to him to show
cause why he should not be disbarred.
The principal reason given against the
granting of the rule Is that he claims
10 be entitled to trial before Il jury of
his peers. His answer was sworn to
before Attorney W. A. Wilcox. a notary
public, and the court ordered it filed
and fixed Monday. April - next. the
iirst day of argument court. as the time
10 near the case. the testimony to lie
taken In open court before City Solicit
or j. b. Torrey. :. Il. Price. and r.. &.
NeWcombe attorneys sitting as Il com
mission by the court. Mr.. Smiths an
sWer is as follows:
first-That the said proceedings are ir-
regular, and the said rule was IMPROVE
IDENTIFY granted because the said rule was
not entered upon complaint, supported 10y
an affidavit setting forth the precise
charges against the respondent. but ap-
pears to have been granted by the court
Of its own motion for matters not occur
ing in the presence of the court. and of
which the court had no judicial kLowl-
edge.
Second-That there being no offensc
charged against the respondent known
and punishable by law. the rule was in
providently granted. and the proceedings
are coram non judice and void.
Third--That there being no offense
charged against the respondent. that
would expose to legal aL.madverslOn i
citizen. the rule was improvidently grant
ed and the proccedingS-are coram non
judice and void.
QUESTIONS TRUTH OF FACTS.
Fourth-That the facts alleged In the
PREDATORY Idrt CT said rule are not true:
that Is TO say, 80 far as the respondent was
informed and believed the statements con-
tained In said letter re true. That. aside
from the fact that His Honor. t. w. Gnn-
ster. told the respondent that he had not
disposed of the case. he never Informed
the respondent that the statements in said
letters were not true. but on the con-
tilry, his failure to answer the letter dat
ed Dec. 8, lSa5, or to inform the respondent
by other ans, tha. the said statements
were not true confirmed the respondent
in the belief that the said statements We're
true.
Fifth-That the first ground alleged
upon which the said rule has been grant
ed. Is not true: that Is to say, the re-
spOndent In writing said letters to the
Honorable j.. W. Gunster had not the
remotest intention or purpose of reflect
Ing upon the official honesty and integrity
Of the said Judge. The sole and only pur-
pose of the respondent being to ascertain
from His Honor. +. W. Gunster, himself.
in good faith and for an honest purpose.
what the truth was in regard to a fact,
which at the time of writing the letter Of
Dec. 81. 1888, was directly affirmed by l..
j. Weieman. esd, and seemingly infer
entially denied by His Honor. +. W. Gun
ster.
SiXth-That the second alleged ground
upon which the said rule has been granted,
is not true: that is to say, that the re-
spondent IN writing the said letters as
aforesaid. had not the remOtest idea, in
tention or purpose To influence and preju-
dice the disposition of the said rule then
pending In the hands of the said judge.
THIRD GROUND NOT TRUE.
Seventh--That the alleged third ground
upon which the said rule has been granted.
Is not true: that is to say, that the re-
spondent In writing the said letters as
aforesaid, had nOt the remotest idea, in
tention or belief that in so doing he was
violating any duty or obligation arising
from his oath as an attorney of the said
court. That the said letters We're not
written by the respondent as an attorney,
nor In relation to any matters which con-
cerned the respondent as an attorney but
as "a defendant in the said rule, and which
! had, upon information, which the re-
spOndeEt could not doubt. been once dis
posed of. and in relation to a matter aris-
ing subsequent, to the end of his function
as an attorney in said rule and Il matter
/ entirely collateral. to any question in
/ volved in the merits Of the said case.
Eighth-ThaI the respondents motive
and purpose in writing the letter dated
March l3. 1896, to His Honor. Judge Gun
ster. was not to influence. prejudice or
+ control the disposition of the said rule,
his sole and only purpose being that be-
lieving His Honor, Judge Gunster, TO
have once decided the case. and that he
| took his opinion back for the purpose OF
correcting such mistake. to inform His
Honor. that under such circumstances il
seemed to the respondent that His Honor
/ Judge Gunster. was the proper person 10
! correct his own mis- take.
NOT GUILTY OF MISBEHANIOR.
| Ninth-That the respondent wrote tn.
( said letters to His Honor. T.. W. Gunster
I in good faith, for the purpose above stated
with pure and honest motive. ana with
not the remotest intention or doing. OF
| suggesting wrong. or an improprety OF
! any kind whatsoever.
| Tcnth-That in writing the said letters
TO His Honor. +. W. Gunster. the re-
spondent has not been guilty of any mis-
| behavior in his office OF attorney. And
4 for all of which matters and things, the
respondent puts himself on the court. and
respectfully requests the court to submit
/ the said issue of fact to a jury for tria
ana determinations.
. I.ackawAnnu county, IS.
Cornelius Smith. the above named re
/ spondeni, being duly sworn, says that tn.
Z facts stated in the foregoing answer are
iru.' as he verify believes.
Cornelius Smith
Death Of Mrs. stephen J Cook.
Mrs. Stephen j. Cook died at hcl
home in Scott last Wednesday morn
ing. after an illness of nine uuyS uu.,