The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-03-24
Smith MAY Be DISBARRED
Court Asks Him to Show Cause Why
He Should Not BE.
THE JUDGE GUNSTER CHARGE
Ii Is shown to be AbsOlutciy WtthOut
ANY Foundation in Fact-ilas
Placed Mr.. Smith in
Very Bad Position.
THE JUDGE GUNSTER CHARG

sation. his charges against Judge +.
w. Gunster, of the bench of this county,
yesterday resulted in Judge r. w. Arch
bald granting rule to show cause
why Mr. Smith should not be disbarred
from practicing law in the courts OF
I.ackawanna county. The action taken
it the result of a letter sent to Judge
Gunster March II, which read as fol-
lows:
Scranton, Pa, March ID, 1896.
Hon. +. W. Gunster.
Dear Sir:-Being your friend from the
very first day of my introduction TO you.
it would seem that l might AT least ciain
fair treatment at your hands. More thdn
this do not want nor nave ever, from
any man. claimed more.
1t being stated to me that In open court
YOU announced your opinion in the case o.
Burns vs. Smith, ct. al. discharging tne
rule to show cause why the appeal shonlI
not be stricken off, and at the request or
Mr. kasson and Burns, in my absence,
you took the opinion back. Upon further
inquiry this statement was confirmed py
other gentlemen who were present IN
and once decided 1t. II does not seem to me
to be either just or fair for you TO turn
the case over to another judge,
Respectfully yours,
1t was the second letter of some
what similar nature Attorney Smlth
addressed to the judge and he was at
once summoned before the court to
make an explanation. Judge Gunster
told him that he had been imposed on
by some one evidently and gave him
until March 16 to name his informant.
Mr.. Smith had to go to the Supreme
court that day and made a plea for
extension of time. He was allowed an
additional weeks grace.
CAME UP YESTERDAY.
The matter accordingly came up yes
terday morning and Mr.. Smith read
an affidavit sworn to by him before Will
liam A. Wilcox. which contained his
statement. lie said in substance that
he was informed by Attorney L. 4.
Wedeman that Judge Gunster handed
down an opinion sustaining MS
(Smith's) appeal in the Burns libel case
on the ground that the check was paid
within twenty days. but Mr.. Kason and
Burns pointed out to the judge that
he had made mistake, that the check
was not paid within twenty days. and
he then took his opinion back for cor
rectiOn.
ON that afternoon Mr.. Wedeman told
him this he called on Judge CunSter and
was informed that the case had not
been disposed of and would not be
until Judge Edwards returned from
Wilkes Barre. where he was then at
tending court. The same day. the af-
iidavit sets forth, Mr.. Smith wrote
letter to Judge Gunster stating that he
had been informed on what he deemed
good authority that the judge had
handed down an opinion sustaining his
appeal on the ground that the check
xx ,niI with tNva al kItt
Mr.. kasson and Mr.. Burns calling his
attention to the fact that he made Il
mistake he took his opinion back for
correction. To this letter he complains
that he received no answer. After re-
frrring to Il remark with reference to
the opinion that he overheard In court
one day he speaks of Il visit he made
to Judge Gunster's house on March II
to ask him to hold the opinion In the
Burns case until he (Smith) returned
from the Supreme court. The affidavit
then concludes as follows:
WHAT JUDGE GUNSTER SAID.
He Judge Gunster) then said the case
was in Judge Edwards hands and lie
would write, and hand down the opinion
in the case and that he would speak to the
judge about 1t.
AS ! returned home from his honor,
Judge Gunster's house, 1t occurred to me
in so doing he had made mistake, and
took his opinion back for the mere pui-
pose of correcting such Il mistake. then
his honor, Judge Gunster, was the pyoper
person to make the correction. And
thinking that there was not the slightest
wrong or imprOpriety in letting his honor
know the manner In which ] received the
matter wrote him in the letter in ques-
ton without the remOtcst idea or inten-
tion of charging his honor, Judge Gunster.
or any other judge with any wrong what
soever in the matter. And. further. |
positively say that in writing the letter in
question. | had not any idea or intention
of charging his honor, Judge Gunster, or
any other judge with the slightest wrong
in the matter.
Judge Gunster directed that the affi-
davits be filed and then drew a let
ter from his pocket bearing date of
Dec. 81, 1895. 1t was the first letter
spoken of by Mr.. Smith in his affidavit,
and contained this statement:
1t being stated TO me that in open court
that you announced your opinion in the
case of Burns against Smith et al. dis
charging the rule and at the request of
Mr.. Kasson and Mr.. Burns in my absence
you took the opinion back, upon further
inquiry, this statement was confirmed by
other gentlemen who were in court.
Now who are the other gentlemen
that were PRESENT." asked Judge Gun
Ster.
''If Mr.. Wedeman Is here, your honor,
l would like to have him sworn and
make statement" replied Mr.. Smith
evading the question.
You have given Mr.. Wedeman's
name as one of the gentlemen" said
the judge. Now who are the other
gentlemen"
Mr. Smith did not reply but again
asked that Mr.. Wedeman be called
and sworn. This was done.
MIR. WEDEMAN'S STATEMENT.
II would like to make a statement"
said Mr.. Wedeman. II think am en-
titled to that. and if you choose to ask
me any questions afterwards they can
do so To do justice to myself and
place myself I'm a proper position be-
fore this court and the members of the
bar. ] think / am entitled to this" He
was told to proceed and made the fol-
lowing statement:
On certain morning, don't remember
when it was exactly, 1 was here In court.
had been requested, as the gentleman
says, to tell him II any opinions In which
he was interested were handed down.
having had occasion to visit his Office
in relation to a suit In Susauehanna
Judge Gunster, handed down an opinion
and ! think read part OF 1t. 1t was In
the case to strike off an appeal in the
case of Burns against Smith. The rule
was discharged. and for the reason. as ]
understood 1t, that the check was cashed
within twenty days. This ] told Mr..
Smith in his Office. That the court re-
called 1t never said to Mr.. Smith or any
other man. Mr.. Burns l think. was not
i'm court. If Mr.. Kasson was here he was
acting clerk or deputy prothonOtary ana
the courts attention was not called to the
fact that there was any mistake In the
opinion
In answer to questions by Judges