Evening journal., 1905-05-08

I
not have disbarred them for miscon-
duct less gross. Nor do cases where
courts have refused to disbar. or have
questioned the propriety Of disbarring
a lawyer charged with an indictable
offense, which he has not confessed and
for which he has not been tried and
convicted appear in any respect rele-
want to the present case.
The cases belonging to the latter
class are summer up by the Supreme
Court Of the United States in Ex
parte Wall 1O7 u. S., page 2Sl, as fol-
lows:
But when the acts charged against
Ian attorney are not done in his Off
lcial character, and are indictable and
mot confessed there has been a diver
lsity of practice on the subject. i'm some
leases IL is laid down that there must
be a regular indictment and conviction
before the court will proceed to strike
him from the rolls: in others such
iprevious conviction being deemed un-
necessary"
There is no doubt or ambiguity. how
ever, about the law and practice of
the courts. The principles guiding the
lcourts of common law and courts of
lequity in both England and America in
the exercise of their jurisdiction to
preserve the integrity and maintain
the standard of their respective bars
by striking a solicitor or attorney from
the rolls of the court, is set forth i'm a
line of decisions dating back beyond
Lord Mansfield. Many of the most in
structive and important cases are so
fully reviewed and commented upon
by the Supreme Court of the United
States I'm the case above cited Of ex
b parte Wall 1O7 U. s., page PCS, that il
b would be sufficient for me to cite that
case only, NUT l will also cite the case
? Of the Fairfield County Bar ex rel
Samuel Fessenden ct al VS. Howard
: w. Taylor, appt decided on appeal by
the Connecticut Supreme Court of Er-
( rors and reported with notes IN Is l.
r. A., page 767 I will also quote al
length from a case decided by Sir Johr
D lRonmilly, master of the rolls, and cited
by the counsel for the respondent, be-
cause Of its similarity to the case al
= bar in some essential points. In rl
- chandler % Beavan. page 253: In thai
case stock was invested in the names
D of Mr.. Chandler Ca solicitor) and Mr.
= Worsey. Chandler in right of his wifi
. being entitled to one-third in reversion
his co-trustee, to join in executing
> power Of attorney to sell off the stock
and to allow him, Chandler to placl
the proceeds to his own account at hi
bankers. This being done Chandle
applied the money to his own use, bu
= continued to pay the dividends to tn
2 lperson entitled until he became insol
n went, when it became known that h
y had misapplied the funds and a pc
= tition was presented to have hin
;. lstruck off the rolls.
e His counsel upon the hearing of tn
lpeition, claimed that The act done b.
- him, though constituting a breach @
n trust, was done in his character a
u trustee and not of solicitor and wit
e no fraudulent intent Mr.. Chandle
e had interest in the fund and naturall
y wished to improve Il. and when he ha
= the money placed to his account at hi
n bankers. he possessed a large amour
lof porperty and thought the trust fun
y lquite safe; but unfortunately il turn
l. ed out otherwise. He did not inten
: to wrong anyone. nor was there an
lt concealment for the money was dul
ri entered in his own books to the prope
le account and there is no reason to sa
le he was solicitor of the trust. He
N not therefore. ameable to the sum
H. mary jurisdiction Of the court in re
ID spect of a matter not relating to hi
'r professional conduct.
'e The master of the rolls, Sir job
or Romilly delivered the following opin
in ion:
e. 1T is said that Chandler was not tn
he solicitor of the trust, and that he Ia
, not made any professional charge
s agaginst the estate. But he was a trus
Id tee and so far as the services of sc
is licitor were required, he had acted a
De SUCH or, at least. there does not az
~ pear to have been any other solicitc
IN employed. He knew it was a breac
of trust to sell out the stock; he kne'
at he could not do so without the conser
ne of his co-trustee; and knowing thi
w he induced his co-trustee to join
as executing the power OF attorney to sc
e. out, and that obviously for his ow
in purposes, he having, at the time n
~ security or investment in view to jus
or tify him in keeping the money at h
bankers for that purpose, but !
is kept it there and applied it to his ow
OF use. This is a course Of conduct whic
re solicitors are bound to keep themselvC
OF free from; they are placed in pos
in ton of a high trust, and happily it
IN very rare that the court is called upo
w to bring them to account i'm this mar
20 ner. They are commonly apponte
> Continued on Page Five.)
err
s. Automobile Association Meeting.