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

gard to this matter in the strongest
terms. The respondent himself seems
conscious that he is deserving of this,
and while the court is obliged to speak
thus plainly and disapprovingly of his
conduct in these particulars, it is some
what gratifying to the court and highly
c~ommendable in itself that he has had
the honesty and courage to admit his
Faults. I am satisfied that, had he been
left to follow his w disposition, unin-
haenced by the advice of counsel, this
matter would ave been much more
speedily disposed of, int much more
satisfactory way. to the court, with very
much less of anguish to the respondent
himself and with less of the appearance
OF w~rongdoing. A person is always to
De presumed to intend the natural and
ordinary consequences of his wilful and
deliberate acts. The facts in this case,
uncontradicted and without explanation,
would justify the court in finding the
facts therefrom that the respondent did
intend to deceive and mislead the court
and was guilty of wilful malpractice,
This deduction would result in conse-
quences of the most serious character
10 the respondent, and this being so is
the strongest reason why the court
should weigh carefully the facts in the
case and consider thoroughly the re-
spondent's defense. From such consider
alton the count finds that there is no
such intent as woul justify the entering
of an order of disbarmenf.
This trial has not been attended with
any pleasure, and it is disa agreeable to the
court to be obliged to utter ~forceful
languagc of criticism; but the conduct
Oh respondents counsel in this case can
not De passed unnoticed. The court took
occasion to interogate the respondent as
TO the reason why he had not come into
court after the citation was issued, and,
py way of answer, made the same frank,
1ull statement of his claim of defense
which he made on the witness stand. He
replied that it was an old saying that the
lawyer who conducted his own case had
a 1ool for a client, and being fearful Of
the truth of the saying he had employed
counsel, to whom he had confided the
conduct Of his defense. His belief in the
adage is his excuse in that regard
Counsel correspondent has offered no ex-
cuse for his conduct, and 1 am persuade
ed That had he seen fit to do SO, it
would not have been that he had as
sumed his positions in the case through
ignorance OF either law or fact. Re
spOndent's counsel must have been
aware OF the truth of all that I have
thus far stated, and yet he has come into
court and on his own responsibility OBJ
1ected to the jurisdiction of the court
to inquire into this matter, charged the
court with having exceeded it's juris-
dictlon in entering the rule and Issuing
the citation herein and asserted that
said order m rule did not state facts
sufficient to justify disbarment of the
respondent even though they We're true,
at the same time we'll knowing, as 1 can
not help but believe, that these objec-
lions were absolutely without merit;
and when the court took occasion to per-
emptorily Overrule and deny them, this
attorney, after having had ten days in
'Whlch TO prepare any answer which
would be proper, arose in court and un-
blushingly requested that the court
should grant ten days additional time
within which to prepare an answer to
the, rule, which answer the court we'll
knew, whatever it's form. could have
been easily prepared heretofore and in
a very brief time. Then, upon the case
being called for trial, with an assump-
ton of honest intention which was de-
stroyed by the very manner of the re-
quests, and their innate absurdity, re-
quested the court to become a witness,
that the trial be postponed and that it
be had before another judge. Upon the
court consenting to become a witness
and refusing to continue the date of the
trial or to have it occur before another
judge. he then reached the climax of his
aHsurdities and disclosed. the true quail
itts of his intentions by demanding a
JUICY trial. The gentleman may be able
inShis view of propriety to justify him
self for his indulgence in this conduct,
but l must say that, in the view of the
court, it has been most reprehensible.
The court sought only the truth in this
matter and that it should be established
I'M the fullest and broadcast manner. l
cannot think that counsel for respondent
had any other notion than this of the
coGrt's disposition, n believing this, I
unhesitatingly say that his conduct was
mbst highly u~nbecoming an attorney.
The respondent and his counsel occupied
close relations in this case. 1t very often
happens that the client must be held re
sponsible for the conduct of his attor-
ney; in this case l a not added such
responsibility to the burden of the re-
sEondent. Had 1 done SO, the result of
this action would have ben disastrous
to him.
If this trial and the opinion and judg-
ment of the court in this matter shall
have the effect of preventing gross mis-
takes and Irregularities in the practice
of law before this court, and shall incite
a deper regard in the minds of some at
torneys for the duties and responsible
ties of their profession, the court will
the less regret it's occurrence.
The court finds as a fact that the re-
spondent was not guilty of any wilful or
corrupt attempt to deceive or mislead
the court, and that the matter complain
ed of occurred through his ignorance Of
the law 1t is therefore ordered that the
rule heretofore entered be discharged and
that the respondent stand acquitted.
Endorsed as follows:
1928.
VIM. Clancy.
Disbarment Procedgs.