The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-09-23
THE STOLEN BONDS
AS VIEWED IN LAW
Layman and Lawyer Discuss
the Question.
SOME SHARP COMMENTS
Laymln Thinks That in Addition to "Jimmies'
Soap" and Drills" Some SAT-.
Cracker Should be
LAWYER.

The publication in the News and Oh
server of the known facts in the stolen
bond case has caused much discussion and
unfavorable discussion.
This has been not alone among the
lawyers of the State and the newspapers,
and return of the bonds, and the connec
tion of Col. ]. c. L. Harris as inter
mediary in the return has been a prolific
source of argument as to the law and the
ethics in the case.
layman who had read of the nego-
tiations of the Raleigh lawyer who re-
fuses to name his client for whom nc
secured 81 600 from Mrs. j. F. Godfrey of
Jonesboro, from whom the bonds were
stolen, became so much interested in the
matter that yesterday he talked with a
prominent lawyer about the case.
In the interview with this lawyer she
layman had In his mind the statement of
Col. Harris that in refusing to name his
client, or any other matters which nc
may have known which would tend TO
incriminate anybody with whom he dealt
or to the detection or punishment of the
thief he had acted I'm a profess
sional capacity and with this in view
he asked some questions. and made some
comments
There are some who claim that no
communication made to an attorney by
his client can be divulged by him. What
do you think of this? was his first ques-
ton after discussing the matter.
mo. this could not be divulged,' was
the reply. but lawyer can refuse to
act, and if what has been told him has
been done in the capacity of an advise.
to a client he need not give his reasons
to the public.
IF a lawyer should represent thief
or thieves. Is there any law which would
protect him in the matter and relieve
him from the necessity of divulging what
he may have known?"
THE law relieves him from any response
bility and it forbids him from telling OF
the natter was the reply.
Let me- put my question IN another
form them said the layman. "Can an
attorney assume to act as intermediary be-
tween a thief and G person whom he has
robbed, receive into his possession stolen
goods, knowing them to have been stolen
demand and collect therefor a ransom
from the owner, and vet violate no law
any of the facts within his knowledge
merely pleading that he acted in pro-
fessional capacity and that communica-
tons to an attorney are privileged?
If an attorney knows the articles TO
be stolen replied the lawyer. "and if he
knows that the person delivering them
is the thief he would by acting for him,
and going in with him, make himself
party to the crime and as such could not
be compelled to make a statement which
would eliminate himself"
Then said the layman, lis this sort of
thing such legitimate part of the prac-
tice of an attorney in this State that the
courts would say that the relation of at
torney and client existed between the thief
and the intermediary?
No replied the lawyer. 'but if an
attorney received from a thief knowingly
it would be unprofessional and unlawful,
but if he received stolen articles from an
innocent person it might be professional
and proper
What Is your opinion about this? Can
a lawyer do that in this respect which a
layman may not do?''
The business of a lawyer is to do things
which layman is forbidden to do, except
for himself was the reply. IF these
bonds to which you refer were stolen and
then sold or hypothecated TO an limo
cent person for value, that one has tue
right to act for himself or to employ a
lawyer to take for him such legal ac-
ton as is necessary to protect his inter
ests and the lawyer can then do with
propriaty what the innocent purchases
could do
This closed the interview. but not the
comment of the layman. In talking to a
reporter OF the News and Observer about
the matter.
In the opinion of this layman as a