Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-10-15

on for hearing and determination, and
the Court and witnesses having estab-
lished quite fully the truth of the allie
cations of the rule to show cause, the
respondent, Notwithstanding nat he
had entered his answer denying gener-
ally and specifically each and all of sal
allegations and pleaded not guilty, went
upon the stand as a witness in his own
behalf and admitted substantially the
allegations of the rule, but denied hat
he had attempted to deceive or mislead
the court. He admitted the substantive
facts that this court did not convene
on the 29th day of June, 1895, until 2
O'Clock p. m. of said day: that no de-
fau1t was entered in the case of Tamil
etti against Tamietti until after said
hour: that w. w. Chapman was not
appointed referee by the court to take
testimony in the action until thereafter;
that prior to said time he had caused
The witnesses whose testimony is re-
ported to come before said w. w. Chap
man and to give the statements ON
tanned In the report in question as their
testimony in the cause, we'll knowing
that said w. w. Chapman had not beer
appointed referee at that time and had
not taken the oath of a referee, and that
after his appointment as referee. said
witnesses or any of them never came
before said W.. w. Chapman as referee
and never gave any testimony before
him as such or verified the statements
heretofore made as their testimony in
the cause; that, knowing all of these
facts, he Gid submit the report in QueS-
ton to the court and expected tina the
court would receive and act upon the
same as he report of the referee in the
action and take the statement of testi-
nlony therein contained as the testi-
Inony of the witnesses before the
referee, and that the court would enter
a decree of divorce upon such state
ment of testimony in favor of the
plaintiff and against the fendant He
further admits that, as attorney in said
action, he was anxious that the court
should act upon said report and grant
a decree of divorce in the said action
prior to its adjournment On said day,
II that, by reason of his anxiety in
this respect, he was influenced to at
tempt to haste the matter by having
the report prepared before the appoint
ment of the referee, and in readiness to
submit to the court as soon after the
appointment of the referee as might be
convenient or practicable.
If this trial and the opinion and
Judgment of the court in this matter
shall have the effect Of preventing
gross mistakes and irregularities in
the practice of law before this court,
and shall incite a deeper regard in the
minds of some attorneys for the duties
and responsibilities Of their profession,
the court will the less regret it's oc-
currence.
1t thus appears cOnclusiVely from the
admissions of the respondent himself
that the court was entirely warranted in
entering he rule and issuing the order
to show cause in this matter, for the
court was justified, knowing those facts
to be true, to infer therefrom, without
an explanation being offered, that the
respondent intended to deceive and mis-
lead the court and to do so wilfully and
was guilty of malpractice. The respond
ent offers by way of defence to this pro-
ceeding the simple plea of ignorance of
the law! He, according to his own state
ment, has been an attorney at law for
many years., and has been a resident
OF this state n a member of it's bar for
about two years. The court, in taking
up this matter, had in mind three quail
tiles which should be possessed by an at
torney-honesty, ability and industry.
The charge made against the respondent
implied a lack of honest motive. As I
have said, the respondent denies this,
but he seems to be frank in confessing
a lack OF ability and industry. Ignor-
ance is not a desirable condition.. The
quality of intelligence always commands
regard. Gross ignorance sometimes
amounts to c~riminality. Then there is a
character of ignorance which, while it
cannot be excused, seems to deserve
more of pity than of condemnation. But
ignorance in an attorney, however much
at times it may excite pity, is usually
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS to the individual
as liable to involve him in trouble, and
dangerous to the rights CT others con-
hded to him for protection and enforce
ment. The court regrets very deeply
that Ignorance should have been the
occasion nc~essitating this investigation.
but, withal, it would have more deeply
regretted If it's occasion had been a
wilfully dishonest motive. The court is
satisfied, from the statements of the
respondent on the witness stand, that
he feels very deeply the humiliation
brought to him by reason of the acts
complained of and the necessity and
publicity of this trial. I dc not deslre
to add to the weight of his burden in
that respect further han may be oc-
casioned by reference to the facts as
they have been established. The respond
ent frankly admits that, If he had ex-
erciSed the proper diligence and indusfrv