Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1902-05-13
SUSPENSION Of FREERkS
Attorney M. c. Freerks of Wahpeton
is Suspended from Practice Of
Law by Supreme Court.
Court Finds That Allegations Made
Against Him are Sustained
by the Evidence.
Accused of Having Collected Money
Fraudulently from the County
- , of Richland.

The supreme court a handed down
a decision in the disbarment proceed
ings of Martin c.. Freerks of Wahpe-
ton, suspending him from the practice
of law, until the further order of the
court. The court, in it's order, pro-
vides that at the second regular term
of court held in 1903, the court may
grant an order vacating the suspen-
sion, upon conditions set forth, which
are, first, that the accused has Within
thirty days of this order paid, OF caused
to be paid, to the county treasurer of
Richland county, the sum of $685.
which amount the court holds was
fraudulently obtained by him from the
county treasury. And, second, if lit
shall then further appear that no YER
flied complaint has been filed with the
| clerk of this court charging said M. G.
Freerks with disobedience of the order
of suspension.
The opinion in the case was written
by Judge Wallin and the facts are set
forth in the syllabus of the opinion,
which is as follows:
A civil action was instituted in
Richland county wherein n Mary
Ann Jones was plaintiff and M. G.
Freerks, the accused herein. was de-
PENDANT. The relief sought by said
action was the removal of a cloud upon
the title of land in Richland county
owned by the plaintiff. which cloud
was created by a tax certificate issued
ON a tax sale of said land held in 1885
for taxes assessed on said land in 1882,
1883 and 1884. Said taxes were illegal
for the reason that prior and long sub
sequent to said tax sale the land in
question belonged to the government
When said action was commenced the
accused was the attorney of the said
Mary Ann Jones and, professedly act
ing in her behalf drew the complaint,
answer and order for Judgment in said.
action, and appearing in his W be-.
half, drew and served the answer to
the complaint. At the request of the
accused, Charles E. Wolfe, Esq, an
attorney at law; as al act of courtesy
to the accused, gratuitiously, signed
the complaint and admitted service of
the defendants answer and, upon the
p1eadings, obtained the signature of
the judge of the district court to an
order for Judgment in the action. The
order in effect directed the entry Of a
judgment declaring said tax certificate
to be void because the taxes were as
sessed on government land and also
directed that the same should be can
celled as a cloud upon plaintiffs title.
This order was delivered to the ac-
cused by said Charles E. Wolfe with
the understanding on the part of Wolfe
that the accused would frame a judg-
ment under and pursuant to the order
and cause the same to be entered by
the clerk of the court. Subsequently
the accused drew up and presented to
the deputy clerk of the district court
a form of Judgment in said action,
which Judgment was entered by said
deputy clerk at the instance and on
the request of the accused and the
same was entered in the absence and
without the concurrence of knowledge
of said Charles E. Wolfe. The judg-
ment as entered granted relief to the
plaintiff as directed by the order for