Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-01-30
COURT HEARS CHARGES
CONSIDERS CASE OF ATTORNEY
JOHN n. ADRIAANs.
Sitting in General Term-Suficiency
Of Court DEGREES and Papers
as Evidence

Hearing In the matter or the complaints
preferred by the grievance committee OF the
District bar against John ii. Adriaans.
local attorney, alleging misconduct. was
resumed today before the Justices OF the
Supreme Court Of the District Of Columbia.
sitting in general term. The Investigation
was begun last Wednesday but questions
having arisen as TO the sufficiency Of the
court DEGREES and other papers offered as
evidence an adjournment was taken until
today. The court room was crowded ana
throughout the proceeding. every move was
followed with the closest attention.
Mr.. Adriaans appeared in his own behalf.
Addressing the court he said the question
| first to be passed upon was as TO the admis-
sibility and sufffciency of the evidence pro-
duced at the previous hearing He recalled
| the fact that he had made a motion when
the matter was first taken UP. asking that
the records introduced be not accepted.
'If the case Is to be considered on the
question OF whether the respondent Is or IL
not to be disbarred I want time to produce
evidence Mr.. Adriaans said, but II the
matter now turns upon the sufficiency or
documentary evidence l will need only ten
minutes In which to present my case. The
respondent is not charged sufficiently to be
required TO respond.
Mr.. William Mattingly. representing the
District committee in opening his argu-
ment said In behalf of the committee. that
its members had no personal feeling Of
hostility toward any one. We regard our
selves as an agency of the court 10 keep
pure and clean the moral tone of the bar,
he asserted At the last session, the
speaker added. there was a suggestion that
this was a criminal proceeding.
I'm response to that" Mr. Mattingly de-
clared. I'VE say emphatically that it is not
criminal proceeding; that IL is not
brought by way of punishment but Is
simply summary proceeding instituted
to determine whether the respondent is
| to before
bar
Upon the question as to whether the
court records were admissible evidence,
the speaker said 1t seemed to him that
Ii required only a slight examination to
show that they should be admitted.
Language Of the Decree.
In each of the three cases on which the
grievance committee based the complaints
the language of the decree and the subject
of the answer showed the guilt of the ac-
cused, Mr.. Mattingly asserted. He went
on to allege that In two cases the trial
court had employed direct language. which
could only be construed as proclaiming i'm
proper conduct on the part of Mr.. Adriaans
Mr.. Mattingly rested his argument and
Mr.. Adriaans addressed the court saying
that the proper method of procedure would
be for the court to follow the examination
of the records offered by the hearing of
oral testimony on the subject matter con-
cerned.
the admission of the papers In question if
they were followed by the Introduction OF
general evidence. Mr. Adriaans cited many
legal opinions In support of his claim that
he should be given opportunity to refute
the charges by general testimony. He
quoted opinions showing that attorney
should not be disbarred from practice with
out the fullest opportunity which the rec
ognized instruments of the law could az
ford to refute the charges against him.
Referring to Mr.. Mattingly and the other
members of the grievance committee. Mr.
Adriaans. with some show of feeling. de-
clared: These five men have not made out
a prima facie case.
They have affixed their names to a pa
per setting forth matter which does not
exist. and they cannot produce it. be-
cause it does not exist. 1t is only q
bluff"
In response Mr.. Mattingly again de-
MED the claim that the proceedings were
of a criminal nature. He said Mr..
Adriaans' argument and citation of cases
went no further than to show that courts
do not disbar attorneys from practice
without good and weil-established rea-
sons. He held that in the papers pro-
duced sufficient evidence had been placed
before the court to Substantiate the
charges set forth by the grievance COM
mittee
AT that juncture Chief Justice Clabaugh
announced that the court would retire To
consider the principal question raised, Tho
admssibility of the documentary evidence.
Upon returning to the bench the chief JUS
tice announced that the court had unarl-
mcuSly agreed in favor OF the admissible
ity of the evidence, and that the motion
of the respondent was therefore overruled.
then offer his testimony. He was speaking
at a late hour this afternoon,