The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-06-24
GEO. ALFRED LAMB DlSBARRED
Law "NO Plate FOR PERJtRERS."
SAYS APPELLATE DIVISION.
justices Unanimous In Deciding That
Ills Conduct In Peter Power Suit Was
Unworthy o! the Profession jerome
Also Takes an Interest In the Ca.


Unworthy o! the rorcsslon-JeroT'c
Also Takes an Interest In the Ca,
George Alfred Lamb was ordered dis
barred yesterday by tho Appellate Division
Of the Supreme Court because Of his gross
unprofessional conduct, amounting TO per-
Jury and subornation of perjury, in con-
ne2tion with the suit brought in the name
of Peter Power, the dummy plaintiff, to
prevent the Northern Securities merger.
Summing up the case against Lamb,
the Court says, in its unanimous opinion,
delivered per curicm:
There is no escape from the conclusion
that not only did Lamb permit his client
Power to swear to false statement, but
reinforced it by his own affidavit, which,
with respect to the ownership Of the stock,
was equally false The charge Of perjury
and subornation Of perjury, because it
amounts to that, has been fully proven.
Considering the purpose for which the suit
was instituted. and the serious consequences
resulting from its institution, and the de-
liberation with which the whole fraudulent
scheme connected with that litigation
was concocted and carried out by the re
spondent Lamb. We are convinced that he
is unworthy Of being continued as a men,
Der of the legal profession. There is no
place in its ranks for perjurers and SUBJ
orners. =
I'VE cannot extend leniency in this case.
The offense OF the respondent cannot be
attributed to the indiscretion of youth
and mistaken zeal. HIS acts show Singh ar
vising and executing the outrageous scheme
by which he involved so many people in
harassng litigation and from the basest
Of motives.
without considering in detail the other
charges made against the respondent and
which the referee has reported are sus--
tanned, after a very careful reflection and
examination of the whole situation we
are satisfied that the respondent should
he dsbarred.
The charges against Lamb were pre-
sented to the court in October, 1903. and
after some dilatory motions by Lamb were
referred to George b. Abbott to take testl-
mony and reI ort.
There we're three counts against Lamb.
A. 3 and c. A dealt with his conduct in
swearing and procuring Peter Power 20
swear. in the complaint against the
Northern Pacific Railway Company to en-
Join its merEer with the Great Northern.
that he, Power, was the actual owner of
100 shares of Northern Paciac stock and
had owned them for six months prio" to
swearing IN lil' SldlFi'tlIt, iit' tNl'H
showed that the stock belonged to Camille
Weidonfeid, the former partner of Thomas
W. Lawson of Boston, and had boon loaned
for the occasion 81 that Power might
qualify a. a plaintiff. A. matter of fact
neither Lamb nor Power etcr bad physi-
cal r,S-o.s'DE Of the stock certificate.
Charge b dealt with Lambs conduct
in smuggling Peter Power ont Of the Federal
jurisdiction - Canada after the lawyer
had been trld +! produce his client for
examination and warrant Of attach
men, had issued. Power was a young
clerk in LAMBS Office and was on his honey
moon when Lamb got him away to Canada.
When he was brought back, Judge Lacombe
# the United States Circuit Court sent
him to Jail for contempt and also severely
reOrimanded Lamb.
Charge c was a repetition OF all the
charges in A and B. :,
that LAMB a'2 was rep gppty of gross eunproes
SIGNAL conduct and malpractice, which
was highly reprehensible and more calcu.
lated to defeat than to further the ends OF
Justice"
The Appellate Division in its opinion
reviews the charges and testimony at
great length, but in its summing up deals
only with Charge A as the most serious
The Court comments;
at appears beyond dispute that Power
was dummy who taking the respondents
own statement had been brought into the
litigation by him in response to the sugges-
ton made by Weidenfeld that he should
get someone who in his (Weidenfeld' 81
interest would bring the suit to test the
legality Of the action of the railway COM
pany in retiring it's preferred stock; and
that. for such purpose, he. Weidenfeld.
would carry 100 shares OF the common
stock for. such persons account. AS a
matter of fact, Power never became a
stakeholder Of record. nor was there a
transfer to him Of the certificate which
1t is claimed represented his interest. He
never. therefore. owned single share Of
the stock Of the company either Illegally
or euuitablv. and Lamb had rs much
knowledge Of this fact as Power had
himself
District Attorney Jerome was much in
tere,ted when he was informed that in the
opinion of the Appellate Division LAMBS
conduct practically amounted to perjury.
He sad:
Il have not seen the decision vet. At the
present moment am not familiar with the
facts in the case. hut shall look into them
II all depends on my e'tgation what
action will take"
George Alfred Lamb was horn in Lon
stone 4 AuarraCh. kse was admitted to the
ta~ in 1881. and in 1850 he eft that office
and formed a partner ship with George 4.
Noss. He subsequently wa N partnership
with Daniel W. Guernsey and later rancheI
ont for him EFF. He had Office until recent
ly ~ - Liberty street.
Scmn months ago he was divorced by
his wife in suit hrough: M State. Mrs.
Lamb named her own sister n correspond
ent.