New-York tribune., 1898-10-17
CROKER Us. THE GENERAL TERM


Mr. Richard Croker is evidently much in
censcd with Justice DAILY for daring to think
that the Supreme Court is not pcrqusite Of
| Tammany Hall. and still more for daring to
listen to the popular appeal for him to become
candidate. instead n bowling to the Croker
decree In his anger at Justice Dalys stand
for judicial Independence he is betrayed into
saying OF the Tammany organization:
It has endeavored to put up for office the
hest men that could he found, and in the nom
| ination of Judge Fitzgerald. Justice Andrews
and Mr.. Leventritt it feels that it has nominated
men who are the superior In integrity and aDil-
ity OF Justice DAILY
It is worth while noticing tho sort of man
Mr. Croker regards as superior in integrity
and ability 10 the Judge whose character Is
vouchcd for by thousands Of members of the
Bar. utterly regardless of their political afhla
tions whose qualifications were 80 conspicuous
that the Bar Association asked both parties TO
rcnominate him.
Mr.. David Levcn,ritt one OF Mr.. croker
candidates. who Is declared To he superior IN
integrity and ability to Justic" DAILY. was
few years ago sued 10y one Of his own clients
for malpractice as an attorney. The case WAS
taken TO III, General Term of the supreme
Court. and in March, 1877. that Court declared
that I.cventritt had been guilty of gross irr"g-
ulartics'' in attending TO his clients business.
She was the plaintiff in a divorce suit, ana
he obtained IT for her irregularly ana Illegally
and She thereafter innoccntly remarrylhg. sun
seoucntly found her decree set aside ana h'r
honor seriously compromised. The Court ir"'h
her from blame for her Illegal marriage. ana
Justice Davis in his opinion declared mat h"r
trouble was due "tO several gross irregularities
committed by the defendants N-eyentritt ana
another, in obtaining the judgment. lie also
said
Tho order Of reference was obtained from
the Court before the expiration or the 'tie Ioi
the defendant in the action to appear ana an
swer on the hearing before the referee no
evidence Of tho adulteries alleged in the com,
plant was produced, but evidence was produced
tending TO prove aduterics committed after the
commencement Of the action. The judgment
roll was entered without containing the sum
mons In the action These several tnings we,e
irregularities which could only be attributable to
gross negligence on the part Of the attorneys.
In respect to the Introduction OF proof
before the referee Of aauteries committed long
after the action was commenced, II Is mlid
form Of description to say that act or the at
torneys gross irreguIarlty.
In view of this decision Of the General Term,
what Is to be thought of Mr.. Leventritts s'l-
peror integrity and ability: Everybody KNOWS
that one of the gravest scandals in our admin
istration of justice in past years has been the
abuse of the process of the courts by lawyers
to obtain divorces Illegally. Are the people of
this city prepared to accept Mr.. Croker'S recon-
mcndation. and set aside Justice DAILY and ele-
vate to the Supreme Court lawyer judlclaly
branded as guilty Of gross Irregularities in the
mana cement Of divorce proceedings? Are they
prepared to vote at all for party that would
thus degrade the courts?