The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-03-24

said he never told Mr.. Smith the opin-
ion was taken back ut the instance Of
Mr.. Burns or Mr.. Kasson. He further
said tina. he nexer discovered that he
made Il mistake when he said the opin-
ion i'm the Burns Smith case was hand
ed down. Judge .Gunster then made
the following statement concerning the
matter:
JUDGE GCNSTER'S STATEMENT.
In the case of some one the name do
not recall against rockingham ! did hani
down an opinion. l had been Informed by
Mr.. Pryor that In that case the appeal had
been taken in time and the check had been
paid within twenty days. | was Informed
by Mr.. kasson that that was a mistake.
l took back the opinion a; once. looked
at the record and found as matter OF
fact that 1t was mistake. The award In
that case was entered on April and the
appeal was taken OH April 20, and the costs
were paid by check. 1t was my duty to
recall the opinion because | made mis-
take. But in the case of Burns against
Smith there was not even so much as
consultation between Judges Edwards and
myself until after the conclusion OF this
last argument court. And If there be any
member of the bar that informed MIR.
Smith of any such thing, as he states
here in his affidavit it is his duty to come
forward and state ii.
Mr.. Smith said he had no recollection
of talking to anyone about the matter
save Mr.. Wedeman. When he failed
to receive a response TO the letter he
sent Judge Gunster he felt that what he
had heard was confirmed:
Judge Edwards-There is no one you
can name outside O! Mr. Wedeman?
Mr.. Smith-No. sir. Nobody that can
name that l. had any special converse
tion with, think ! stated to Mr.. Mahon
once thar the opinion was handed down.
Mr.. Mahon-ln so far as | have heard
Your Honor OF these letters IL seems to me
If am capab BILE of Judging that there Is not
anything in the letters that would I'M
uly that there was any miscontidence or
anything of that character.
AN ATTACK ON A JUDGE.
Judge Archbald-It is a direct attack
upon the honesty and integrity of u judge
and II is an attempt to influence the deci-
sion of this court. There is Eo: any otner
purpose in that letter. Mr.. Smith Is JUST
repeating i'm this court just what he has
done in other courts: attacking other
judges of this commonwealth, not only
those of this court. but of other judges IN
this commonwealth.
The three judges then retired from
the bench to deliberate and in about
twenty minutes returned. Judge Arch
bald then handed down an order re-
quiring Mr.. Smith to make formal
answer on Monday, March 30. to the
rule to show cause why he should not
be disbarred.
After quoting the letters the order of
the courts goes on to relate:
p The statements In the said letters with
regard to the alleged disposition of the
said rule by the said judges being untrue
and the said Cornelius Smith having been
so informed by Judge Gunster, prior to
the writing of the last of the said letters,
Il rule IL now entered upon the said Cor
nelius Smith, to show cause why he should
not be removed from his office of attorney
of this court and his name stricken from
the rolls thereof. on the ground:
|. That the said letters reflect upon the
official honesty and integrity of Hon. +.
w. Gunster, one of the Judges of this
court.
9 That they tend 10 influence and preju-
dice the disposition of the said rule pend
ing in the hands of the said judges
8. That the action of the said Cornelius
Smith was In violation of his duty and
oath as an attorney of this court, and IN
tration of justice therein. and attempted
interference Herewith.
This rule TO be entered and served vita
n copy of these charges forthwith upon
the said Cornelius Smith, with the re
uuirement that he make formal answer
thereto OH or before Monday. March 30.
at o'clock, Il. M. AT which time the salu
rule Is made returnable.
In the course of the week we will ap-
point certain members of the bar TO con-
duct the prosecution Of this rule. and upon
the return of the answer We will see what
further steps are to be- taken.