Evening journal., 1905-03-30

When the Honecker disbarment case
was resumed before Chancellor Nich- |
olson IN the Court OF Chancery today. !
William S. Hhles of counsel Tor the
lrule, made the opening address FOR
the prosecution.
He explained that Il was one OF the
most unpleasant duties he had ever
been called upon 10 perform and said
his colleagues felt the same way. He
felt however. as q member OF the bar
IL was his duty to present their side
Of the case.
Mr., Hines said the conditions were
that the respondent was appointed
trustee OF the Teas estate which was
valued at about $4,000 There is a
difference he said. OF but 36 cents be-
tween the accounts OF Mr.. Hofecker
as trustee and the report Of Alexander
b. Cooper. the master. Under the will
of Joseph Teas the estate was to have
been handed over to the grandchildren
OF the testator.
, HOW THE ESTATE WAS DIVIDED.
r The children of Mr.. eTas were to re-
celve the interest only. but upon their
: deaths both principal and interest were
gone
A The lawyer stated that the dealings
] lof Mr. Honecker were reckless and
that his connection with the Cham
bcrlaln estate and clay Investments
did not speak well for the manner OF
handling trust funds. If Judge Brad
: ford, Mr. Hilles said. severed his con-
nection with Hockessln Kaolin Com
pany how much higher a duty did the
trustee OF an estate owe TO those de-
pendent upon him.
$1,000 FOR COUNSEL FEES.
n Continuing. he said that Mr.. Hof-
n fecker used $1,000 OF the estate In
paying off Miller and Mr.. Higgins
for counsel fees IN cases IN which the
n estate had no interest. that $4,000 had
a been used TO aid the Chamberlains and
W that he had also paid himeslf fees foI
l defending he latter.
Is The transactions which led up 10 the
re formation of the Hockessin Kaonr
b. Company and the connection there.
with Of the Teas estate were reviewed
az length. If the deal hnd panned on
Mr Hoffecker woui4 have made abou
@ $4,000 as an individual and not as
s' trustee
n Mr.. Hiles said that $4,000 whlcf
A was received from the clay invest.
y. ment had been placed bv Mr. Honeck
l. or IN his own pocket Not one dollar
is Of It, he said, WIS placed TO the credi
~ OF the Teas estate. whereas one-hal
Of Il at least should have been giver
TO the estate.
Regarding the Cedartown Company
which was q corporation Of Georgia
y counsel for tho rule said that Mr. Hof
~ fecker was director and a promote
~ OF the company.
In closing Mr. Hliles reminded thl
Chancellor that IL was duty to se
to II that the solicitors of the ba
should not only be morally quaIinc,
ls when admitted. but should continu
rh so. 'T now intend TO malse the mos
L. unnleasant duty NJ nv life and pleas
'o God n viii he the last move tha
is Tho rule OF your honor be made abso
's Lutte"
M MR.. EASTBURN's REPLY.
rs. Horace C. Eastburn. OF counsel T.
ne the defense. made an eloquent plea o
i'm behalf of his client against the rul
re. being made absolute. lie said it ha
been his privilege TO register as
law student with Mr. Honecker an
that he was not ashamed Of that priv
nege. BY the evidence produced n
INNlN NiAhA AE NNNiN AlNA NiE MA'Af WI
single dollar received by Mr.. Hof
no. fecker as trustee had been used n
~ lhis own personal use. All the invest
be ments. he argued. had been with III
~. concurrence of Mrs. Stotsenburg an
IN Mrs. West He claimed that emere,
.a the fact that his Judgment had bee
bad was not sufficient reason for dis
an barment
Mr.. Eastburn held that the accour
OF Mr.. Honecker was as full as thos
fled by other trustees in such case
| He contended that the eXamlnatio
made by Mr.. Cooper as trustee, wa
mo examination. and that Mr.. Coops
" only touched the edges OF the affii
Of the respondent Mr.. Hoffecker. /
-, lsaiw. courted full examination Of h
.ho transactions as trustee. He declare
hi the master did not properly eNamir
mr.. Hoffecker's income hook and with
M, out such an examination repoi
could not be made that would do II
., respondent justice.
- Mr.. Eastburn produced the incoU
30 hook and offered TO read from itf b'
~ M-. Whiteman. of counsel for the rui
IA objected on the ground that the boo
Au had already been passed in favor
''.' the respondent
In concluding Mr.. EdSlpuiu 9''
be that his examination of the account
or Of Mr.. Homecker had not caused hil
ng. to lose confidence in his integrity
man and a gentleman
This afternoon Mr.. Higgins address
q lcd The court in behalf Of Mr.. Ho
ON fecker
ma MR.. CooPER's AFFIDAVIT,
soi Tho most important development in Il
lte James II. Hone cker, Jr, disoarment pr
r ceodings ycstcicay afternoon. was q
reading of the affidavit made by Ale
ander b. Cooper the master. who WI
on appointed to make an investigation in
'is- the affairs Of Mr. Homecker as trustee
/. the Teas estate. Mr.. Cooper claims tn
ch' the trustees did not give satisfactory 7
tor plies 10 his requests
Alterations TO Brandvvvine.