Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1899-06-08

| '-i@i-'' 81 H-2tNo fOit t1NSORS.
Surface Indications in the superior
Court point to the dlsbarment OF Walter
Bacon tomorrow Mr. Bacon made an
effort this morning to secure a continu-
ance OF the rule until September. but
the court instructed him to be ready to
put in his defense tomorrow morning.
and the attitude OF the bar censors gave
to everyone the impression that there
would be no abandonment Of the prose
scution.
Court met at 10 o'clock, at which time
the rule on Mr. Bacon was returnable.
After several cases on the argument list
had been disposed OF Mr. Bacon was re-
minded Of the rule He advanced TO the
bar and made a statement TO the court,
In which he said that he had been sick
for week and that he had not had the
time to prepare his defense. nor was he
physically able to do so. lie had not re-
tanned counsel, or taken any steps look
ing towards his defense. In conclusion he
asked for a continuance OF the rule to the
September term.
William s. Hilles member Of the
committee OF ccnsors, said that nc ex-
pressed the unanimous sentiment OF the
committee when he objected to such a
continuance. The duty OF the committee
was an unpleasant one but 1t was forced
to take action. Once before the court
/ had exercised It's clemcncy In behalf of
Mr.. Bacon. when a similar application
was made on similar grounds. on his ex-
I
repetition OF the offense. but that in
spite OF that promise the bar Of the
county had been disgracod time and
again by repetition OF exactly the same
thing. lie said that Mr.. Bacon did not re-
qulrc any great length OF time In which
to prepare his defense, for the action was
based upon the certified copy Of the rec
ords OF his conviction and the execution
| of the sentence under that conviction.
The committee had no desire to spread
upon the records OF the court all Of the
dlsgracefm details OF the specific charges.
1t hoped to spare both him and the bar
Of the county the additional disgrace, but
1t was determined to do its duty, even
! II 80 We're compelled TO go to that extent.
) to the end that the fair name and de-
4 cency OF the bar Of the county should be
a preserved. Nothing could be gained by
q either Mr.. Bacon or the bar by a con-
o tinuance OF the rule.
q Mr Bacon said that he did not object
10 such "a detailed statement and renew
3 ed his application for a continuance. lie
o said that since his latest misfortune ne
o had taken a pledge to abstain from the
D. use OF intoxicating liquors forever, and
@ chat with Gods help he would keep that
q pledge. There was no criticism OF his re-
lailons with his clients. lie only asked
q for time to present the law as to what
causes could justify a court IN wiplng out
7, from a man all hopes OF making a living
y for his wife and children IN the profess
sion either here or elsewhere.
y chief Justice Lore told him that the
. duty OF dealing with his case was a pain
!, ful one to the court. but that Il felt that
! !, the case should be taken up tomorrow
. morning al 10 o'clock.
Mr. Bacon then walked out of court to
engage an attorney and prepare his de-
4 Tense.
SUPERIOR COURT ROUTINE.
In the case OF Elizabeth Ocheltree's ex-
ecutors vs. James T.. Gregg Colonel Ben
iamln Nlelds appeared. representing An
ME T.. Gregg. who Is a judgment credl-
tor Of James E. Gregg her brother, for
the purpose OF opposing confirmation Of
S a sheriff's sale. The court held that as
he was representing nobody who was a
party to the writ he had no standing IN
= court; and again. he was trying to do
indirectly what was prohibited by the
y rules of the court to do directly, namely
hiing reasons to set aside a sherin's sale
II after the first Thursday OF the term
In the case OF Sallle s. May VS. Samuel
{ NJ Forbes, being the foreclosure OF a
mortgage. Mr.. dihlcs, representing the
plaintiff, moved for Judgment notwith-
standing the affidavit Of defense. II. H.
Ward argued for the sufflciency Of the
i, allegations IN the affidavit OF defense
N lie was sustained by the court. and the
. motion for judgment was refused.
N Continuance was made OF the divorce
case Of Lille VS. Samuel Mclaughlin.
Upon application Of Medford II. Ca.
hoon, Harry p. Joslyn was appointed
commissioner in the two divorce cases OF
Mary A. vs.. William S Walls, and Louisa
r A. VS.. George l.. Bartlett.
: on motion Of Horace G. Knowles, attor.
ney for the complainant IN the divorce
p case OF carrie A. de Shazo VS.. Joseph B
'- de shazo. James W. Lattomus was APP
l. pointed commissioner to take testimony
e, The divorce case OF d.ottie S. Beer.
l. brewer vs.. william $ Beerbrower wa.
p continued.
r Dismissal was the disposition made OF
the divorce case Of Charles T. Jamisor
Is vs.. Kate Jamlson.
N Settlement OF the libel case OF John T.
p Ahrens VS.. the Republican Printing and
t. Publishing Company was reported.
William S. Hnles and LMburn Chandler
representing Fillmore p Chandler IN ths
n suit against William e. and Margaret A
e. Tull. asked for Judgment notwithstanding
the affidavit of defense Medford H. "a.
hoon represented the defendant The
question involved is the power OF mar.
q, ried woman to mortgage her premises q.
!. collateral security for her husband.
{. debts. Decision was reserved
Court adjourned until 10 o'clock to-mor
row morning.
REPORT ISSUED.