Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-01-09
BY. COURT OF APPEALS
Opinions Handed Down in Sew
eraI Local Cases.
JOHN H. ABRAMS VICTORY
Order Disbarring the Attorney to Be
Revoked.
RESTORING PLUMBERS LICENSE
Action of Postmaster General Declin-
ing to Admit Publications to
Mails Upheld.
ESTORING PLUMBERS LICENSE


Columbia late yesterday afternoon handed
down eight opinions, five of which sustained
the action of the tribunals appealed from
and three reversed the judgments OF the
lower courts Among the reversals was the
opinion in the case of John H.. Adriaans, a
member of the bar of the District Supreme
Court who was disbarred by that court
last February. The appellate court holding
| that the evidence did not sustain the dis
| barment. ordered that Adriaans be REIN
| stated on the roll of attorneys. The Court
| of Appeals also reversed the action OF the
| District Supreme Court, and directed that
| writ of mandamus issue against the Dis
| trict Commissioners commanding them to
J restore to Joseph E. DAILY his license as
master plumber and gasfitter. The thro
case reversed was the patent appeal OF
Blackford against Wilder
The AdriaanS opinion, written by MI. JUS
| tice McComas says:
1.-THE dsbarment of Adriaan5 for mlscon-
duct which happened about twelve years ago
| is most unusual.
..Tbe record discloses no extraordinary
| circumstance which persuaded the court TO
| ignore this long delay. The court 90 say
that if Adriaans was guilty OF the speclne
offense charged to have been committea
twelve years before, he has not oHereo
proof of any amendment of his conduct
since. We are more impressed oy the alb
Sence from the recOru ol cHai Ses VI iiiiSNo
."The majority of the Supreme Court has
| based it's action upon single TRANSACTION
which occurred long ago, and we are nm,
tied to that. We omit many questions urteu
by respondents counsel because we oeen
discussion of them unnecessary. we 90 not
douht the respondents right of appeal IN
| this case.
Responsibility of Bar.
I'VE appreciate the proper anxiety OF the
Supreme Court to maintain the respectaph-
ity of its bar and as Chief Justice Marshali
has said, power and discretion to achleVe
this end ought to reside in the court ana
no other tribunal can decide in case OF
disbarment so properly as the court itsel1
and this revising tribunal appreciates the
delicacy of reviewing the court below In thls
proceeding.
dence offered in support OF the charge
against Adraans was the original Dill IN
equity in the case of Fry VS.. Adriaans, hled
April o. 1894 the defendants answer, and
the decree passed October 20, 1884 II is
added:
action. Neither the eminent justice VINO
passed the decree nor the court In genera
term took notice Of this alleged miscon-
'.The associate justice, who dissented
from the order of disbarment we mere
consider, strongly argued that the Dill, an
SWer ana decree IdiiCu " SoPPC
specification of misconduct by Abrams,
and the majority of the court only claim
for this badly framed bill that 1t In SUP
stance charges fraud. me conIa reie r.,
ence in its opinion to the testimony III
that equity cause relates to Things OUTSIDE
the record before US and SO also Is tlle
comment upon inconsistency IN Adrlaahs
statement upon testifying In his own pc
half at this hearing when compared win
his testimony in said equity cause his
present testimony is not in CONNECT WIN
his answer filed in the equity cause
1--WE agree with the associate justice,
who dissented, that this bill omits to al
lege that Adriaans was then an attorney
at law or that the relation OF attorney
and client existed between him and the
complainant or to state that AoIiaans
made any representation of fact, ana that
it was false, and that he knew 1t was
false or that such representation inf1u-
enced the complainant to sign the deed
which he asks to be set aside, and which
the answer consents may be set aside upon
the ground of mistake
1.-The decree orders Adriaans to reconvey
the property conveyed by Fry to Adrlaans
by the deed referred to In the bill OF com
costs of the suit. This decree suggests
nothing unfavorable to Adriaans 1t states
nothing it does not exclude mistake or
other grounds Whlch might eAohoidee Au
..The justices of the court, anxious to re-
move from the bar member they deemed
unworthy, and solicitous to deal with ms
case Justly, have in our opinion attrlputed
undue weight to this bill, answer and decree
in equity We are constrained to say that
the prof is legally insufficient.
The opinion then states that although the
Court of Appeals is disinclned to interfere
with the order of the Supreme Court, yet
the power to disbar ought always to be
exercised with great caution ana only IN
clear cases; that the charge should be sus-
tanned by a preponderance of satisfactory
evidence, and concludes: THE career of an
unworthy member of the bar is apt to re-
veal misconduct more recent than In TINS
case where the proof is legally insufficient
to disbar this respondent on account or an
offense alleged to have been committed
twelve years ago.
ordered
Adriaans appeared in his own behalf in
the lower court, but was represented on
appeal by Attorney James s. Easby-Sm1th.
To Restore Plumbers License.
The case of Joseph E. Daily against the
District Commissioners involved the au-
thorty of the Commissioners to revoke a
plumbers license. and also the validity of
sections II, Is and IA of the plumbing reg
ulations prescribed by the Commissioners.
| 1t appears by Days petition, lied in the
| Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
| that he was duly examined by the plumbing
board and found to be fit person to en-
gage in business as master plumber and
| gaShtter: that tneTeupOn license was Is
sued to him as such from April 1, 1900, to
April l. 1905; that a new license was issued
| to him from April l. 1905,\ to April l, 1910;
| that In August, 1905, he was notified by the
| Commissioners to answer certain charges
| alleging violation by him of the plumbing
regulations or else his license would be
revoked without further considerations
| that he answered denying the charges, and
| October 10. 1905. while his license and the
| bond given by him were in full force, and
| while he was actually engaged in perform
1 ing sundry contracts as plumber, the Com
| missioners made and entered in their rec
| ords an order declaring his license revoked.
! Daily claimed that the action of the Com
| missioners was irregular, hasty, arbitrary
and contrary to law and in disregard of
! his rights and he denied the power of the
| Commissioners to revoke his license and
| nrayed for q writ of mandamuS to require