Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1896-04-17

prominent members of the bar, the Nkw
MEXICAN to-day reproduces careful re-
vision of the terse opinion of Associate
Justice Collier in the Catron and Spiess
disbarment proceedings as follows:
OPINION.
In THE SUPREME COURT,
TERRITORY OF New MEXICO.
In re charges and specifications against
Thomas b. Catron and Charles A. Spices.
In concurring in the conclusion of a
majority of the court IN this case, l can
not assent to all that ia said 10 the opin'
i'm of the court. 1t was announced Al
the time the judgment of the court dis
missing the charges was rendered that
some observations on certain practices
INDUCED in by respondents would form
part Of the opinion of the court. Many
matters expected by myself to be advert
I'd to are not contained In the opinion or
referred to directly or indirectly. As to
these will not submit any views, be-
cause, as they in no way appear on the
face of the record, will not impart them
for the mere purpose of giving an indi.
vidual opinion.
The opinion does, however, contain
some things must express my dissent
from. do not believe that an attorney
having high sense of professional de-
corum and ethics would have permitted
himself to visit the witness, NOVEL;, upon
the plea that he honestly desired to ascer
tain what the wituess would testify to-
because he had stated to another in con-
versation the different state of facts from
what he had already testified to. He
could not rest upon the presumption that
the witness would repeat his former ttsti.
mony, and it WAS not the Office or bust.
ness of the attorney against whose client
that testimony initiated to give that wit.
ness any warning or advice as to the
pains of perjury. The fact that wit
ness could have testified in Il certain way
and is told by the attorney of the client
against whom that testimony bore, that
1t would show that he had made contra
dictory statements, Ia itself threat tend
ing to the suppression of testimony,
The attorney should have relied upon his
right to impeach the cred,bility Of such
witness according to the rules of evi'
dence, and the practice of the courts, aud
can not agree that Discover no IN
professional conduct" in the respondent
visiting ana talking with the witness
NOVEL;. While think bis act was blame
worthy, do not think 1t such reprehan
sible conduct as deserves disbarment.
Other matters do not care to advert
| to, except to say, that I believe cOun se
should so bear themselves toward wit
nesses, who are suhp@naed for the side
to which they are opposed, as not to give
| rise to the suspicion of improper infu
ence being exrrted, and thlnk that &c
far as the witnesses, Max Knudt, Domin
ga Apodaca, and Luiz Gonzales are CON
cerned, the respondents do not appear te
have so conducted themselves as to WARD
off suspicion. II the two latter witnesses
we're of such uhsavory character, as tht
testimony of the respondents shows, ano
which the court takes rs establish. d, it WERE
better for counsel to have kept aIoof, in
stead Of seeking one and being visited BY
spondent Spiess is concerned, it not he
ing denied that Sp,ess visited Domingo
Apodaca, nor that Gonzales came to hit
Office upon the request of his employee.
| have thought it my duty to say thit
much ds to the concurrence give to the
courts opinion, because these matters
| appear on the face of that opinion.
N. G. COLLIER,
Associate Justice, etc