Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-03-16


processes. 1t did not appear that he
had ever collected that extra amount
except in one case where he claimed
that it was the error of clerk, and
an entry of credit for the over collec-
ton was found on his books. They
also found that he had made it his
custom TO have parties from the north
ern part of the county summoned be-
fore a disclosure commissioner at Au-
gusta, and parties from the southern
part of the county summoned to Wa
terville to disclose, and that the travel
often prevented them appearing for
disclosure, and he would by that means
secure judgments on account of the
non-appearance. He had also pursued
debtors with threatening letters of a
character calculated to bring the pro-
fession of the law into disrepute, and
had solicited business in unprofes-
sional ways and by offering mo col
lection, no charge.
Hon. Orville D. Baker, attorney for
Mr.. Hussey, presented the position of
his client. He admitted that the show
ing was such that it would not be out
of the way for the court to censure his
client. but claimed that such radical
and cruel measures as depriving a man
of his profession and with it his means
of livelihood were uncalled for. es-
pecially as he had been suddenly
jumped on and never given a chance
for repentance or reform. Mr.. Hus-
sey had been eminently faithful to his
clients and industrious in their behalf
and there was no insinuation other
wise. He had also shown a willing
ness to reform his methods, and no
one could take exception to the meth
DDS which he had employed since this
case came up. He also said that the
case was not properly presented. that
no definite charge had been made, and
his client had not been summoned into
court to show why action should not he
taken against him. Mr.. Baker argued
at length upon that legal point, sew
eraI times consulting his associates,
Messrs. Heath and Philbrook.
Mr.. Cornish stated that as for the
technicality, this was not criminal
prosecution. The attorneys are officers
of the court and the court has au-
thority over them for summary dis
cipline. The bar association had
voted not to prefer charges because the
members did not wish to do such an
improper thing as even to suggest to
the court the way in which it should
discipline an attorney. The bar had
laid the il formation before the court
with a request for consideration and
such action as the court might deem
proper. He did not know how it could
be held that the court had authority to
reprimand and not to expel.
Chief Justice Wiswell ruled that the
court does have the power as claimed
by Mr.. Cornish, but an exception was
taken to the ruling by Mr.. Baker.
Then. on his own initiative. Judge
Wiswell ordered Mr.. Hussey to appear
at o'clock in the afternoon OF the
same day to show cause why he should
not be deprived of the privilege of
practising law before the courts of
Maine.
In the afternoon, witnesses were call
ed to show that Mr.. Hussey's methods
of collection We're as described in the
report of the committee of the bar A
number of specific instances We're
shown. The clerks in his Office were
called to tell how he had ordered the
raising of bills for collection, and his
hooks We're examined at some length
The charge Of making extra and I'M
necessary travel for debtors was not
gone into as We're the others. The wit
nesses We're Miss Caroline Durant, Miss
Julia A. Folsom, Colby Getchell, Miss
Helen Thomas, Charles N. Fish, Leon
ard A. Davis, A. r. SaWtelle, and
Henry Dostie, several of them parties
with whom he had had dealings. The
witnesses We're examined by Hon.
Charles r. Johnson of Waterville, and
the cross examinations were conduct
cd ny Judge Philbrook.
The Introduction of witnesses by Mr.
attorneys to show his faith
fulness to clients, came late in the day,
and in order to save time, a general
statement was prepared by Judge Wis
we'll to which they all made oath. 1t
reads: 1T was admitted that the fol-
lowing gentlemen will testify that they
have at various time employed Mr..
Hussey at attorney to collect claims
which they have put into his hands.
and that so far as his dealings with
them are concerned he has always
'lctu IiOilpl anu systematic IN MS
of doing business has prompt
ly paid over the moneys collected so far
us they know without delay, deducting
only the commission and charges prop
yerl reainable by him; and that their
relations with him, they as clients and
he as their attorney, in these various
matters have always been entirely sat
lsfactory, and that so far as they are
he has always acted in good
faith toward them" The witnesses to
that were CYRUS w. Davis, w. T. Rey-
nolds, DIR. ]. F. Hill, l.. H. Soper, ].
G. Goddard, James j. Pray, John M.
Weber, and Frank Redington, lead
ing business and professional men of
The arguments will be
made, this morning
The case of Babcock VS.. Getchell.
Heselton for plaintiff, Johnson for de-
PENDANT, is on the trial list FOR today,
AUGUSTA WATER COMPANY