Evening journal., 1898-05-17
IupaE AlRlNoLp.s AoTToN.

tsr" While that assertion does not
hold good in an cases, III is conceded
by many ol the lawyers themselves
that There is a growing disposition on
The pant of many members OF the bar
to charge exorbitant fees; TO resort to
sharp plaIctace, and to- work up, by
means OF runners, litigationand practice
whfch would NOT come to them NATURAL
ly amid honestly, according to the ethics
OF the bar itself.
In Common Pleas Court No A. OF
Philadelphia, on Saturday, Judge Ar
mold handed down an order directing
that the name OF Samuel EVANS Maires
be stricken from the roll OF lawyers
pracdlcing in THAT court and THAT a GER
Titled copy OF The order be sent TO each
or the other courts of the county. From
cur Philadelphia contemporaries we
CLEAN THAT THE proceedings against Mr..
Mlaires were instituted by the censcrs
of the Law Association after am in
vesdlgatiCn whidh had occupied many
monuhs. Upon their application Com
mon pleas Court No. granted "a rule
for lhe disbarment OF Maires, amid a
heautng was hVid in open court about
two weeks ago, at which considerable
evidence was submitted showing how
Maires conducted his business and
treated his clients. Under the decision
of the court THE rule against Malres
Was made absolute and his disbarment
ordered in THE following words i'm the
opinion OF judge Arnold: "Upon the
facts avs developed before us, we ara
constrained to say THAT Mr.. Maires is
unfit to be continued longer as a mem
ber of the Ibar of this court, and that
am order win be made striking his
name from the roll thereof"
The opinion OF Judge Arnold was
quite lengthy. After referring to the
delicate and dlsagreeable duties of the
court in dlsbaument proceedings, the
opinion launches forth in dissertation
ON the Important trusts conGded to att
torneys, the high qualifications for in
tegrity and honesty which lawyers
should possess i'm dealing with their
clients and the court, and the necessity
OF maintaining tine responsibility OF the
bar. The evidence submitted at the
hearing is dwelt upon i'm detail. The
case which gave rise to the inquiry
was the suit OF Hesta V. Cook to re-
cover damages from the Peoples Trac-
tion Company A verdict for $4,000
WAS rendered, hut an appeal was taken.
In the meantime Mrs. Cook died and
her mctlher was substituted avs plain
tiff. With her Maires made am agree
ment to- pay her $1,000 she signing
away an rights to any damages that
might be collected
This agreement was so novel and
amazing" continues Judge Arnold.
THAT THE agent of the Traction Com
pany concluded to go over some Of the
ether cases which Mr.. Maires had con-
ducted against the company when the
cases ON which the present rule is
based were recovered" Judge Arnold
then reviews the history of several
cases amid the MANNER in which Mr.
Maires dealt with his clients ais was
submitted to the court by evidence at
the hearing. In all these cases agree
msnts had been DRAWN and signed by
Malrss' clients as to o. division Of the
moneys to be recovered
In commenting upon these agree
mcnts Judge Arnold says: IF these
carefully drawn agreements astonish
us, Mr.. Maircs' statements on the
stard aston.sh us moro. They make us
wonder how anyone with any SENSE of
professional propriety or regard OF
legal ethics could conceive and deliber-
ately make and preserve such Agree
men5s. They CONTAIN every ingredient
necessary to make a case champerty al
common law and furnish written proof
thereof, which is indisputa'b,e.
"The nanner of obtaining the right tc
bring these suits involves another com
mon law offense, that OF common bar
ratry. Persons who did mot care tc
bring suit, and perhaps Thought theil
injuries were as much the result o1
their own carelessness as that of amy
one else, or were unwilling to inves
their money in THE moderate cost OF Z
lawsuit, were hunted up by the assist
ants or students, office boys or runner
of Maires, as tlpsso pests are called
and thus litigation was made and dis
honesty ensued in The division Of tht
spoils.
IF we cake Mr. Maires' construction
of his agreements to he correct and THAI
he had am interest in the variou
claims entrusted to him, then he VIA
a partner with the plaintiffs, and in hi
subsequent dealings with them ha
been guilty OF the modern statutory of
fence OF fraudulentiy converting part
nership money. Either way we loOl
upon his dealings as a champertol
barrator or dishonest partner we fin
no mitigation whatever, NO excuse 70