The New era-leader. (Wagner, Charles Mix County, S.D.) 1911-1912, 1911-03-10

0o1Defalely te8tIueQ, 8HliO 8ODb dHo
with his eyer filed with tears. that
~ hAd TO leave school when he was
only twslvs years old and consequent
" dfd not know anything about ng-
ures and was too ~illiterate and unedu-
Gated to keep an ordinary set Of col
iection books, and hence his inability
to remember his business transacr
lions Of which there appears to be q
very large number of this kind scat
tsred through this part Of the coun.
try.
Very few attorneys doing a general
practice keep any such record books
anyway. and ven so, 1t il about the
simplest form OF a record known.
And the lack of any attorney to have
suficient education to keep such a
record, even though anybody believed
this fimsy story In this instance,
ought Of itself be suficient cause for
disbarmenr.
In the Unity Walters cas- it was
charged, that during the year 1905.
and while she was lying in Jail at
Tyndall on a trumped up charge filed
against her by her husband. on the
pretense Of using it To assist in pro-
curing bail for her, that Mr.. Harlem
induced her to endorse a certificate
b. deposit she held for $500 OF a Me-
braska bank, it being ali Of the
known means which she possessed,
and that he got it cashed and ap-
p~ropriated the whole amount to hia
own use and has v returned a
dollar OF this amount.
In the Dipping Tank case, the
Judgment and costs collected . by
Harlem from one d. L. Howard, to be
paid to L. DeHaan and William u.
Shuck, amounted to $3.50. About
two years a~fterward, these parties
succeeded in getting $50 out of him.
but the remaining $3.50 is still un-
paid.
These cases enumerated are the
ones wherein the referee found
against the defendant, but the latter
two are mild ones compared to many
others which are claimed against him
and which there seems to be an album
dance of evidence to substantiate II
given a fair trial.
The decision arrived at by the Su-
preme Court on count Is. which II
known as the John Ham case. and
which Is the particular count when
the court used as It's text for disbar-
ment, further goes to show the Q
treme unfairness Of the referee In
trying to shield and acquit the &C.
cused. He finds Harden guilty only
al IMPROPER CONDUCT. Note the
| difference IN the findings Of fact
on this count Of the referee. and
those Of the Supreme Court itself,
which We quote later on
The part taken by Mr.. Harlem in
the William Hippen murder case was
commented upon by this paper at
the time, and is too well known by
the public to need further mention
now more than to say, that in com
parison to it, the charges proven in
the celebrated Egan case concerning
the O'Grady matter, are entirely laid
III the shade.
In the twelfth allegation in the
complaint filed by g. I. Kirk. who Il
the in the disbarment case
ii Is charged that Mr.. Harden, who
had Tor = good many years been Mr.
Kinks attorney in all matters, turned
over and took his wife's side in q di
vorce case against him and ~encourag
ed her in bringing and prosecuting
the same: and that he used informa
ton obtained from the u while
consulting him as his regular AND
paid attorney. In the cas- which BIZ
afterward prosecuted for Mrs. Kirk
~
And that Harden inserted into sale
complaint many false. and slanderous
charges for the purpose Of murine
the accused In the community where
he lived: and that later he inserted
the same into the findings OF fact
submitted to the court. and misled the
court Ito signing the same, without
ny evidence to sustain the charges
The decision Of the Supreme .Cour'
itself, where Mr.. Kirk carried hi
case, and which reversed the lower
court and upheld him in every con
tendon. handed down In December
1909, il enough to justify this chargt
without further argument. The de
ctsion o. the court IL scathing In tt
denunciations OF Harben's course. a
the attorney in the matter. and II
one sentence declares: In fact
there Is absolutely not q word o.