Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1904-12-26

lKIdl Judge, Hdu SIG Lilou6HI shiiy VINO
was being attempted. and On that way
he would have been speedily exposed.
The very fact that he proceeded In this
open and frank manner is OF itself con-
vincing that he intended no wrong.
Again, the evidence upon the trial OF
this case convinces the court that ul,on
the trial Of the LAMA case in the ols-
trict court Mr.. Boardman did have a
colloquy with the trial judge upon he
subject of interrogating witnesses Sc
garding matters that had already been
answered In the examination at me
former trial. and that such collocu NY
was substantially as set out IN me
notes that were added to the report
er's notes. reading as follows:
"Mr. Boardman: Does your nollor
rule that this witness cannot answer
any questions which have already been
answered in the examination taken at
the former trial?
by the court: do"
Judge Burnham and Judge Casw ell
both Of whom testified as witnesses IN
this proceeding. do not specifically say
that such colloquy occurred, but the
court is Of the opinion that 1t may be
fairly gathered from their testimony
that 1t did in fact occur.
"In respect to the change in the re-
porter's notes and transcript regarding
the testimony of George Gregg where
the original notes read: Ito which no
objection was made" and which were
changed to read Same objection by
plaintiff" in the opinion of the court,
the contention OF defendant Board
man is fairly sustained that the re-
porter did make a mistake in writing
her notes that no objection was mt de,
for the reason that IL none had been
made 1t is not likely that she would
have referred to the matter at all IN
her notes. while IL any notes IN this
respect were made necessary by sorne-
thing having been down upon the rul-
ing Of the court, it is more likely that
the notes would have read, same ob-
lection by plaintiff"
Then continuing, he says: 1t, is pos
sible he may have been mistaken asi to
what those facts were, but there Is
nothing in the record to indicate that
he was actuated by anything but hon
est motives In this connection. II is
due the defendant to say that all the
changes in the notes, or transcript,
were made by Miss McKinnon.
1t would probably serve no particu-
lar purpose to cite authorities in sap
port of the finding of the court upon
the law applicable to this case, but the
court is of the opinion that where the
proof fails to disclose bad or fra Id
ulent motive, that Judgment OF CHS
barment is not authorized. My attain
ton has not been called to any case
where a member Of the profession 1as
been disbarred for acts proved or ad-
mitted to have been committed, where
the evidence was clear that no FRAUD or
deceit or wrong was intended. or where,
as in this case, it is clear that the
acts committed were the result OF ig-
norance or mistake.
The Judge then states that ne pc
lieves Armstrong was actuated by mall
ice as he. had no personal interest In
the case.
Continuing, he says
"While, this court is of the opinion
that the defendant proceeded either
thru ignorance of the rule In regarc to
the correction of a record of the court,
or thru mistake it finds nothing in the
record that would warrant a judgment
of disbarment or OF any severe cen
sure.
For the reasons above indicated, the
petition is dismissed; and the costs
will be taxed to the petitioner. F. W..
Armstrong. Judgment accordingly. To
which findings and each of them, and
to the Judgment, the said F. w. Arm
strong separately excerpts.
(signeD FRANKLIN G. PRATT,
Presiding judge.