Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-05-04


A Similar Condition.
A question similar to this arose in the
case of Chirac v. Reinecker. IL Whet go,
2S5. 1t was there held that counsel could
not disclose whether they were employed
to conduct an ejectment suit for their cli
ent as landlord of the premises. The real
dispute In that case was whether the
question put to counsel did involve the d;s-
closure of professional confidence. If the
question had stopped at the inquiry, say
the court. whether the witnesses (the
counseD were employed by Reinecker as
counsel to conduct an e1ectment suit IL
would deserve consideration whether it
could be universally affirmed that it In
volved any breach Of professional conf
dence. The fact is of a preliminary nature
and established only the existence Of the
relation of client and counsel. and there
fore might not necessarily involve the dis
closure of any communication received
from that relation after 1t was created.
But the question goes further, and asks
not only whether the witnesses were en-
plOyed, but whether they were employed
by Reinecker to conduct the eiectment
suit for him as landlord of the premises.
We are all of opinion that the question in
this form does involve the disclosure of
confidential communications. 1t seeks
disclosure of the title and claim set I'D
by Reinecker to his counsel for the pur-
pose of conducting the defense of the suit
1t cannot be pretended that counsel could
be asked what were the communications
made by Reinecker as to the nature, ex-
tent or ground of his title: and yet in eff
feet the question in the form In which 1t
was put necessarily involved such a dis
closure.
Will Data Sacred.
..In this case the question put to the wit
ness and which he refused to answer. by
declining to give the name of the party
from whom he took the memoranda for pre-
pairing the will, involved a breach of
professional confidence. which the witness
had expressly pledged himself not to vio-
late according to his testimony. The fact,
however, of his being employed to take the
memoranda for preparing the will was full
ly within the privilege of confidential COM
munications between client and attorney.
Few people who find 1t necessary to employ
an attorney to prepare will desire the
fact to be publicly known. 1t is essential
ly confidential and privileged commune
cation, and few attorneys would be en-
ployed to draft wills IL it was understood
that they were at liberty to disclose the
fact to any person, or upon any occasion
when disclosure was desired In this case
the name of the person from whom the
memoranda was taken was at most but
collateral fact. but the disclosure being
protected by the privilege of the client, the
attorney was not upon any principle COM
pellable to disclose the name. LIST Greeni.
Ev Sec. 44S. By the terms of the COM
mitment the appellant could not release
himself from imprisonment except by vfo-
lating the privilege of his client, and this
he could not be compelled to do.
Upon the case presented we are of
opinion that the appellant was without
lawful or sufficient cause committed to
prison. and that his detention Is wrongful
and without warrant of law. and eonse-
auentiy he is entitled to be discharged. 1t
follows therefore, that the order from which
the appeal is taken must be reversed. and