The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1898-06-07
[ \ R 4 !!
SNUBBED.
Supreme Court Hears an Ap-
plication to Disbar Simp-
son and Noonan.
Mr.. W. B.WILLIAMS ASKS FOR 4 RULE
Admits That the Defendants
We're Not 70 Blame fog 3I Ds-
lay in the Second
Trial.
Justice Depue Says the Court
Will Take No Action Until
After a Sufficient Time
Has Elapsed.
[special to ..rhe Jersey city News."]

Especial to ssThe Jersey City News.''l
TRENTON, June Z, 1s9S.-The Supreme
Court sat down heavily this morning on
the Hudson County Bar Association in
the Noonan-Simpson case.
Mr.. Washington B. Williams, Chairman
Of the special committee appointed by
the Bar Association to investigate the
matter, appeared before the main branch
of the Supreme Court, consisting of JUS
tees Depue, Garrison and Van Syckel,
and moved that rule be granted direct
ing Joseph NJ Noonan and Alexander
Simpson to show cause why they should
not be disbarred from practising in the
courts of this State. Mr.. Williams briefly
sketched the history of the charges
against the two men and told of the ap-
pointment Of the committee by the Bar
Association and the investigation which
it had made.
The committee, he said, invited the ac-
cused to appear before it and answer
the charges The men replied that they
did not think the committee should take
up the matter until they had been tried
under the indictment which had been
found against them. The committee then
put off the investigation until after the
trial, which resulted in a disagreement.
Noonan and Simpson were again sum
moned before the committee and they re-
quested that the hearing be again post
poned, as they had been informed that
they would be tried again at the April
term. The April term passed and the
indictment had not been tried. The COM
mittee informed the accused to appear
again. They still claimed that the COM
mittee should not act until the indiet-
ment had been finally disposed of, but
the committee insisted that they consid-
cred it its duty to act. The accused then
denied the charges against them and sub
mitted the record of the trial, saying that
if the committee would read that the
members would see that the charges
against them were not proven.
do you claim, Mr.. Williams asked
Judge Garrison, 'that the accused were
responsible for the failure to bring the
Indictment to second trial?"
mo, SIR promptly replied Mr.. Will
Jams.
The Judge then asked why the commits
tee which thought 1t proper to postpone
action until the Indictment had been
tried, did not think it proper to wait now
until the second trial had taken place?
Mr. Williams said, according to case
in the United States Supreme Court, the
matter of taking action remained with
the Court and as the committee had no
judicial function the members thought it
was their duty to call the attention of
the Court to the matter.
The Court then went into consultation
and then Mr. williams said that he had
been Informed by the Prosecutor that
he proposed to bring the case to trial
during the recess of Court.
Judge Depue said that the Court would
order the papers in the case filed; but
would take no action until sufficient
time for bringing the second trial on in
the Hudson Court had passed,