Evening star., 1906-02-14
ADR|AAhS DIsDARRED
Not Eligible to Practice Before
District Supreme Court.
APPEAL FROM THE RULING
Dissenting Views Expressed by Justice
Wright.
COMPARISON OF TESTIMONY
Matter Received Very Careful Con-
sideration-Fullest Range Given
to the Investigation.
COMPARISON OF TESTIMONY

The Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia, in General Term, today an
! nounced an opinion holding John H. Adri-
aans, a local attorney, guilty Of the
charges of fraud and misrepresentation
brought against him by the grievance
committee of the Bar Association and d.
rected that he be disbarred from practice
! before that court. To this conclusion
| Justice Wright read dissenting opinion.
| The judgment of the court was an
\ nounced by Chief Justice Clabaugh, who
In stating the conclusions reached on the
| various questions presented explained
| that he was speaking only for the ma
| Jorfty. As soon as he had finished Justice
| wright began the reading Of his dissent
ing opinion.
| The court room was crowded at 1920
O'Clock this morning. the hour which had
| been announced for the rendering of the
| decision. The majority of those present
were members of the District bar. Mr.. Ad-
| rlaans appeared In court accompanied by
Attorney J. s. Easily Smith, who was en-
| ployed by the respondent to represent him
| after the charges had been presented and
argued before the court. Mr.. EasbySmith
had fled a motion, which was denied, for a
| rehearing on the ground that Mr.. Adriaans
| was without counsel, through no fault of
| he conducting his own defense. Imme-
| diately after the court had been opened this
| morning Mr.. Easy-Smith noted an excep-
| tion to the ruling of the court denying a
| rehearing.
Chief Justice Delivered Opinion.
| Chief Justice Clabaugh then delivered the
| opinion of the court. He reviewed the case
| from the beginning. stating that the court
| had agreed that the issue turned upon tho
| question of whether evidence OF fraud and
| Misrepresentation had been furnished in
| the specification as to transactions between
| the respondent and a colored man named
| Wesley Fry. The chief justice read the
| charge OF the grievance committee as to
the Fry case. which alleged that Mr..
Adrdaans, about ten years ago. had prac-
| ticed fraud and Misrepresentation upon
Wesley Fry. an illiterate negro. between
whom and himself, 1t was charged. he mad
| established the relation Of client and at
torney and had procured from FRY the con-
| veyance to himself Of certain real estate
| upon the alleged false and fraudulent rep
resentations.
| Following the case down to the fling of
| a suit by Fry to recover the property in
question. the chief justice reviewed the
| proceedings and the judgment of the court.
| 1t was shown that a decree was entered
by the court against Adriaans, providIr
| that the property in question be reconveyed
| to Fry, and directing Adriaans to pay the
costs OF the suit. The reply of the defend
ant to this bill, claiming that the issues
threin raised were questions of law and
not of facts, was discussed In the reply
| the defendant denied all charges of fraud
and Misrepresentation.
| The court, referring to the bill of com
plant filed by Fry pointed out that it was
charged that Fry had signed the convey
ance under the impression that he was
only granting the power Of attorney To
| the majority of the court the chief justice
stated, the bill seemed to put clearly al
| issue the one question of whether or not
there was fraud and rnisrepresentatio in
| the transaction. He said that If there had
! been any doubt in the mind OF the court
as to the issue being set forth, such doubt
| would have been removed by the examina-
| ton OF the records showing the testimony
taken. 1t was explained that this was ex-
amined by the court as collateral evidence
Compared the Testimony.
| Comparing the testimony of the respond
ent in the proceedings In general term and
| his statements in the prior equity and law
! proceedings. the court stated that there
/ was discrepancy. The court pointed out
that in one case Mr.. Adriaans had claimed
that he had offered to reconyey all of the
real estate involved. whereas in the other
! instance. the court stated 1t was shown
1 that Mr.. Adriaans had represented his offer
/ as including all OF the real estate but one
parcel 1t was difficult. the court said, to
1 reconcile the two statements
The chief justice then defined the charac-
l ter of the proceedings instituted against
| Mr. Adriaans by the grievance committee.
4 He said the United States Supreme Court
| had decided that this mode OF procedure Is
| not criminal in its nature and not brought
/ for the punishment OF the respondent but
rather to preserve the integrity and purity
/ OF the bar. The real question In the case.
the court said was whether or not the re-
| spoudent was man OF such integrity and
character as that the court should continue
! to hold him out to the community
man to be trusted with the transaction Of
such important business matters as might
4 ~ v>la oend ty1h hfc n
| The court was of the opinion that in
! general the length OF time which had
elapsed since the date of the alleged fraud
| should be of very serious consideration.
The court realized, 1t was stated, that to
deprive a member of the bar OF his op-
portunity and means of earning a liveli-
| hood by practicing his profession was of
| the greatest Importance to him. Continu-
| ing, the chief justice said that the court
| also realized that when an attorney is adj
| mitted to practice the court Is virtually
saying to the public and the community at
| large that there is man worthy to be
trusted with the serious business affairs
| that may be placed in his care"
| In this case. the court stated, there had
| been nothing offered by the respondent
I tending to show that there had been any
amendment on his part since the time of
| the alleged fraud. 1t was stated that the
court. thinking It wise to give the fullest
| range to the investigation. had allowed the
respondent to put In evidence practically
4 anything that he had desired. I'VE do not
/ feel that we should consider the length OF
time that has elapsed" said the court. I'VE
| feel that the charges have been sustained
and that we should pass an order dis
| barring this respondent"
| Dissenting Views.
| Justice Wright then began the reading
of his dissenting opinion. He prefaced his
statements by announcing regret that he
| had been unable to arrive at the same con-
elusion expressed by his colleagues. To
entertain an opinion differing from theirs,
| he said. required that he should give his
reasons in full although he said he had
/ rather be silent The right to continue in
/ the practice of the profession of law, he
continued, ca9not be removed without due
eprocess of law: which requires not only
the presentation of specific charge but
also requires the trial and proof OF 1t ac-.
that is. by evidences such as Is both rele-