The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-06-02
His Name Stricken from the
Rolls Of LaCkaVanna
County,
OPINIONS OF THE JUDGES
They Review in Detail the Circum.
stances That Led Up to the Un-
pleasant Duty They We're Called
Upon to Perform YsStsIday-An
Appeal to Supreme Court Probable.


Cornelius Smith Is no longer an attor-
ney of the Lackawanna county courts,
and after practicing law twenty-seven
years in this city, he must now involun-
tariiy retire. By an order OF the court
yesterday morning Mr.. Smith has been
removed from his Office Of attorney OF
the court and his name stricken from
the rolls thereof.
Two opinions were handed down.
Judge Edwards wrote the principal one
and dealt with the case from the law
and the evidence. Judge Archibald
wrote a concurrent opinion, in which
he defended the action of the court In
sitting In judgment on Mr.. Smith and
explained clearly the reasons why 1t
was done. Judge Gunster did not
write an opinion. but attached his name
to the one by Judge Edwards, concur
ring In it. Mr.. Smith is the second
person disbarred IN this county.
Both opinions were read In full be-
fore a crowded court room. The date.
May 25, on Judge Archbaid's opinion
shows that the case would have been
disposed of a week ago but for his alb
sence from the city. Judge Edwards
opinion Is dated June l. but 1t was
ready to be handed down week ago.
1t having been generally expected
that Mr.. Smiths case would eventuate
yesterday, the bar enclosure was al
most filled with attorneys and the au-
ditorium was taxed to Its utmost.
Mr.. Smith was not present to hear
the judgment Of the court, but his
brother-in in-law. Attorney James Ma
hon, was, and he filed an exception to
the ruling Of the court. 1t was allowed
by Judge Edwards The meaning Of
filing an exception Is that Mr.. Smith
will try to carry the case to the Su-
preme court. The opinion of Judge
Edwards Is as follows:
THE DISBARRING OPINION.
"The immediate circumstances which
led to the granting of the above rule
are connected with the case of Ira H.
John Jennings. No. ISL, September
term, 1895. There were two rules
pending in the case: one to set aside the
case an award of arbitration, the 9TH
er to strike Off an appeal. Both rules
were argued before Judges Gunster
and Edwards at the argument court
commencing Dec. 16, 1896, and an opin-
ion disposing of the rules was handed
down March 30, 1896 The consultation
by the two judges as to the disposition
to be made of the rules was held in the
latter part of February, about the 26th.
so that up to that time nothing had
been said or done in regard to the case
since the argument Of the rules.
1T appears that the respondent had
been informed by member of the bar
that Judge Gunster had handed down
an opinion In his case on Dec. 30, 1896
a lte.I k. ,,,,la frtir =,
appeal. The respondent saw the judge
who assured him that such was not and
could not be the fact, because the case
had not been even considered by the
judges who heard 1t, and that there
would not be any consultation in re-
gard to 1t until both judges could meet
one Of them being from home at the
time. The respondent Immediately
thereafter wrote the following letter:
Scranton, Pa. Dec. 81. 1895.
Hon. +. w. Gunster.
Dear Sir:-I confess / was puzzled wher
your honor told me you had not handed
| down the opinion in the rule TO show
cause why the appeal should not be strick
| en- of. \ respectable member of the bal
informed me that on last Monday you
honor handed down an opinion dscharg
! ing the rule, and upon d statement ben:
| made by Mr.. Burns and Mr.. Kasson, you,
LOON udch tUe opinion IUT lur'ne
| consideration. But as you say otherwisa :
suppose | have been misinformed.
| Yours truly,
WHAT WEDEMAN SAID.
"The member of the bar referred tc
was Mr.. Wedeman, vino afterward tes
tilted that the only information giver
by him to the respondent was that suci
an opinion had been handed down, bu
that he had said nothing about tht
! opinion being recalled for further con
| SideratiOn. 1t Is unnecessary now t,
| discuss Mr.. Wedeman's mistake. 1t I,
sufficient to state that on the day re
ferred to by him an opinion was handed
down in the case of Roberts VS.. Froth
ingham involving one of the samt
points that was raised in the Smltl
case. This opinion was recalled. Ol
the same day another opinion wa
handed down in which the respondent
| Cornelius Smith, was defendant dis
charging a rule for judgment agains
him for the want Of a sufficient affidavit
Of defense.
This accounts for Mr. Wedeman'
mistake. The respondent then. havin
been personally assured by Judge Gun
ster that the case of Burns vs. Smitl
had not yet been considered, and bein
himself apparently satisfied that he ha
been misinformed, the inquiry as to tn
case should have ended until il was dis
posed of in the regular order of cour
business.
J while the Gaze was in the hands O
the judges awaiting consideration an
disposition, the respondent wrote tn
following letter:
Scranton, Pa, March 10, 1896.
Hon. F. w. Gunster.
Dear Sir:--Being your friend from tn
very first day of my introduction to yol
1t would seem that ! might at least ciaii
fair treatment at your hands. More tha
this do not want, nor have claimed NOR,
1t being stated to me that in open coui
you announced your opinion in the cas-
Of Burns w. Smith ct al, dischargin
the rule to show cause why the appes
should not be stricken OF. and at the r,
quest OF Mr. Kasson and Mr.. Burns, in m
absence, you took the opinion back. Cpo
further inquiry this statement was cor
frmed by other gentlemen who were the
present In court. Now. II you once ha
the case, and once decided 1t, 1t does nC