New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-03-24
DEUELPLEADS FOR TIME
1NSWER- PLEASE RESIGN.
His Counsel attacks Jerome
Ingraham Reserves Decision.

The resignation of Justice Joseph NJ. Deuel.
from the Bar Association, il was asCertained
yesterday followed the action Of the associa-
TONS grievance committee in deciding to hear
charges against him. Failing TO induce the COM
mittee to suspend hearing Of the charges until
after his case before the Appellate Division of
the Supreme Court had been decided, it was
said Justice Deuel. was advised to resign in
order that he might not have to answer two
sets Of charges at the same time.
Justice Deuel. last evening gave out a copy of
| a letter he sent to Howard Townsend. chairman
| of the grievance committee Of the Bar Associa-
ton. on March 6, asking for suspension Of action
by the committee. The letter said:
I joined the Bar Association in 1884 I then
needed its splendid facilities i'm practising my
profession Ten years later, having been ap-
pointed TO the police court bench, l closed my
Office and ceased to practise law. Membership
| thereafter was without pecuniary value, but
continued to pay dues and used the library sole
/ " magistrate justice of Special Ses
slons, so that could do better judicial work.
A complaint is now pending before the COM
! mttee on grievances. seeking to terminate my
! membership i'm the association. complaint is
| also pending before the Appellate Division of
/ the Supreme Court. seeking my removal a
! justice of the Court of Special Sessions. These
/ two complaints founded on identically the
( same state of facts.
Under ordinary circumstances I should vel
come inquiry by this association. l am con-
sCious Of having given my full time and capac-
! single duty shirked neglected or indifferently
/ performed. No hint Of that kind has been
! made I have not been content with the per-
/ Torrance of routine work. but have spent nearly
all my time off the bench in efforts to he pub
/ lCly useful What have done in this direc-
! ton be easily ascertained, for much of 1t
! appears in the statutes Of the state. I am not
conscious of having violated the charter in car
] rying on business The mere fact that 1
/ ready to answer before the Appellate Division
ought to be a strong factor with experienced
LAWYERS to induce meanwhile suspension of iudg-
T71pr aud 7 lrF1OyE how he
| cruel innuendoes forming portions Of each Of the
| before mentioned complaints, which are bound to
appear in a judicial investigation conducted
under ordinarily unbiased methods
To proceed with the pending inquiry under
these circumstances will seriously embarrass me.
! This will be appreciated by every member of the
/ committee Some Of those who urging this
! action have been inspired to do so because Of
! the public effect hoped 10 be produced I
] satisfied the members of the committee on grieV
ances would not willingly lend themselves to
such iniquity, and that your association Itself
/ would refuse to aid in a matter palpably OPP
pressive. I therefore request the committee to
SUSPEND action in the matter until after the in
! quiry has been terminated before and an adJu-
dication had by the Appellate Division.
! The charges on which District Attorney Jer-
| ONE Edward N. Shepard and James W Os-
! borne ask for the removal of Justice Deuel. from
the Special Sessions bench were presented to the
! Appellate Division yesterday afternoon by How
/ ard s Cans. Justice Deuel. present with
! his counsel. Edward Lauterbach.
]
| published in The Tribune Mr.. Cans said they
were based on the testimony in the Norman
/ Hapgood trial and were in effect that Justice
/ Deuel. had engaged unlawfuly in the private
/ business Of publishing aiding in II publica-
ton of Town Topics" and that SANDER and
/ blackmail were connected with the publication.
/ Mr.. Cans asked leave TO submit testimony taken
/ in the Hapgood trial and also asked that ref
! cree be appointed to hear evidence on the
charges.
Justice Ingrahan, who presided, said the pro-
ceedings in the Hapgood trial could not properly
come before the Appellate Division in the pres
! ent proceedings.
! MI Lauterbach. replying to Mr.. Cans, said
| that there was no charge of either malfeasance
/ OF misfeasance IN Office against Justice Deuel.
and Justice Deuers record such as precluded
/ any such charge. adding: 1T is a matter Of al
most universal knowledge that Justice Deuel. has
stood pre-eminent in the faithful performance of
/ duty"
/ Mr.. Lauterbach argued that the provision ~
! the charter requiring justice to devote all his
/ time to public duties was unconstitutional
Therefore this court is without Jurisdiction"
! he said. Il contend that justice has every
right to carry on useful business so long as it
does not initiate against his judicial duties: if
| they are properly performed there IS unlawful
ness in any attempt to restrict useful activity"
Pointing to a statement in the charges that
/ the petitioners were engaged on opposite sides
| Of the Hapgood trial. Mr.. Lauterbach said that
was an error proceeding to attack District At
torney Jerome follows:
There were three counsels for the defence in
/ the Hapgood trial. and not an honest, straight
! forward representation Of the prosecution The
counsel who assumed to represent the people
! asked the defendant, HapgOOd, Who furnished
| this evidence?" and the defendant replied, You,
! Mr. District Attorney" And then the District
I Attorney SAID Then am the defendant in this
/ action" Then In summing up Gllegedly, the
/ District Attorney said, Il astonished the
/ mildness Of Hapgoods statement"
Justice IngrahAm said that the question was
whether there was sufficient ground for the
court 20 act on the charges and call Justice
Deuel. to answer them, as the Appellate Division
/ had already considered the constitutonality OF
tha charter clause. He reserved decision, giving
Mr. Iauterbach leave to submit a brief Mon
day.
! INVESTIGATING POLICE GRAFT CHARGE.