Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1904-12-26
ACT is CALLED A MISTAKE
judge Plat States That Disbarment
Is Not Authorized Whom Proof Fails
to Disclose Fraudulent Motive
Costs Are Taxed to Armstrong, and
Latter censured.

Mr.. Boardman was instrumental IN
changing some records, in an irregular
and unlawful manner. the evidence is
sufficient to convince the court that he
did so with no intention OF deceivins
anyone. The fact that the negotiations
with the court reporter were carried
on nv letter seems to convince the
Judge of Boardman's innocence. ana
therefore. the petition Of f. w. Arm
strong to disbar Boardman on the
charge that he has been guilty OF con-
duct unbecoming an attorney-did al
ter. change, destroy and forge rec
ord Of the district court Of Marshaii
county" is dismissed and the costs
are taxed up to Armstrong
Judge Platt's decision recites the
nature Of the action, that 1t was upon
a petition as above mentioned support
ed by the above charges, that Board
man had replied denying each charge
and had subsequently amended by III
ing document Of 100 typewriter
pages setting out in detail the history
Of the whole transaction. The judge
then states the material facts to pc
contained in the correspondence that
passed between Mr.. Boardman and
the court reporter. In substance
Boardman commended that the reporter
had omitted certain testimony and at
torney's exceptions" from her tram
script. She replied that she did not
have any shorthand record of the
NJ, 10 he cd
further correspondence with Mr..
Boardman consented to put the addi-
tional matter into her transcript and
change her original notes accordingly.
Miss McKinnon. the reporter, was not
well at the time of the trial, and as
many of the witnesses were Italians
she was not sure but what she had
omitted something. When Judge
Burnham's court was petitioned to re-
store the record as it was before the
making of changes dictated by Mr..
Boardman. he complied and restored
them taking occasion to censure Board
man most severely for what he had
done. Armstrong, who had an old
score to settle with Boardman, took up
the matter, and brought disbarment
proceedings.
Judge Plat, after referring to the
correspondence. says, in part:
Counsel for the prosecution in this
case insist that it having been shown,
in fact that it not being disputed,
that the reporters notes were changed
in the respects indicated, and that the
transcript was made to correspond
with the changed notes, the necessary
conclusion must follow that the defen-
dant be found guilty of the charge
made by Armstrong, and they con-
tend that the question of intent is not
involved in the matter. But the court
is of the opinion that the intent is the
gist of the whole matter. While 1T is
true that practicing attorney is sup
posed to know the law, 1t is matter
of common knowledge that no attorney
knows all of it; and that every attor-
ney who has practiced at the bar has
made many grave mistakes, some OF
witch il it could be truthfully said
were made with the intent to accom-
plish the object that the mistake re-
suited in. would convict such attorney
of practices which would warrant
Judgment of disbarment. To illustrate:
Suppose that an attorney procured a
judgment upon the statement to the
court that he is entitled to default
upon good personal service of the
original notice. when as matter Of
fact. a careful and judicial examina-
ton Of the return OF the original notice
discloses that. the notice was not prop
erly served. Can 1t be said in such
case that the absence Of an intent on
the part Of the attorney to deceive the
court and to procure Judgment
wrongfully, that he should be disbar-
red? I think not.
"In this case the question Of the in
tent with which Mr.. Boardman caused
the reporters notes and the transcript
to be changed can be determined from
the correspondence between Miss Nc
kinnon and himself, and to the mind
of the court, 1t can be definitely ascer-
tanned whether Mr. Boardman was ac-
tuated by any intent to do wrong or
whether he proceeded under the mis-
taken belief that he was acting In ac-
cordance with the law governing such
cases. 1t must be admitted, and he adj
mits that he did not proceed according
to the law, and that he should have APP
piled to the court, under proper notice
to the adverse party, for the correc-
ton of the reporters notes in accord
ance with his views Of the matter. But
it Is clear to the mind of the court
that what he did was in one sense thru
ignorance, that really he acted without
giving the matter any thought or con-
sideration, believing that having CALL
ed the reporters attention to the mat
ter and she substantially agreeing with
him, that it was right and proper that
she correct the notes to correspond
with what she, as well as he, under
stood to be the fact in respect to what
transpired at the trial. Had Mr..
Boardman intended to do wrong, it
seems to me that he would not have
committed to writing his suggestion
that any changes he made in the re-
norters notes. Miss McKinnon was
an officer of the court, one who is con-
coded by all of the parties to this pro-
ceeding to be beyond reproach in res
meet to her character and her ability
as such officer; and Mr.. Boardman
would not have approached her upon
subject of this nature by means of
correspondence signed by himself, had
he Intended to practice a fraud upon
the court or to induce an officer Of the
court to do something which he knew
TO be wrong. Had he been actuated
nv any wrong intent, he must have
known that Miss McKinnon would have
called the matter to the attention Of the