New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-06-15
Money WrongfuIIy Employed in
Defending Suits Against
Traction Line.
CASH PAID TO WITNESSES
Court Attaches and Policemen
Among Those Who Profited
Attorney Says He Is
Innocent.

Supreme Court, acting on the report OF
Frank Sullivan Smith. who acted as ref
cree in hearing the charges against Robin
son.
The charges made against Robinson by
the Bar Association had largely to do with
the method of expenditures by the Metro
politan Street Railway Company in me
matter of damage suits that were brought
against 1t. These included payments TO
witnesses in these actions and to police
men. and It was shown that money was
also paid to court clerks and court attend
ants
Another charge was that the Metropolitan.
through its investigators of claims, kept
witnesses against the company away from
their homes The court held that this sys-
TEN tended to subvert the administration
OF the law and also to subornation of per-
jury.
Mr. Smith the referee said in his report
TO the Appellate Division that while Rob
inson was the victim of the system in the
Metropolitan legal department when he
took charge the entire blame could not lie
laced or the system.
The respondent is an educated gentle
man" says the referee. the son OF an
IGNORED jurlst. and it is practically certain
that but for his Office general attorne!
Of the railway company he could never
have been charged with conduct unbecom-
ing an attorney The system Ions estao-
lshed Icy the legal department of the rail
way company was so to speak inherited
bv the RESPONDENT and not created by him
Il was q vicious system. The respondent
Flowed himself to become an instrument
# the system instead OF crushing 1t. 1t is
TO be regretted that the entire blame can
not lie laid upon the system
Money to Many Policemen.
Presiding Jusuce Ingraham. in writing
the unanimous opinion OF the court. re
viewed some Of the testimony taken before
the referee and also the charges. He called
attention TO evidence of payment OF moneT
ht the Metropolitan investigators TO thirty
f,n,r policemen in one case 800 being pal
u each Of two policemen. The latter were
called as witnesses in suits against tha
company.
Robinson was asked in the investigation
of the charges against him whether the po-
Ncemen would not tell the truth if they ala
rot get the money. Ills reply was: w ell
they tell it more cheerfully when they are
good natured and friendly with the com
pany than when they are antagonisuc'
Attention was also called to payments
made by the Metropolitan to physicians an II
attendants in hospitals who had in charge
patients injured by streetcars and who hg-
ured as witnesses in the suits that fol-
lowed Perhaps the most fragrant OF these
was the Nowak case.
The surgeon of the hospital whittier the
plaintiff was taken on being injured was
a witness for Nowak. who obtained YER
dict. A new trial was ordered. This time
the same surgeon and an orderly from the
hospital were called as witnesses by the
railway company, which this time won the
verdict
1t developed that within month after
the first trial the surgeon had received 500
and the orderly s25 from the Metropolitan
The Appellate Division said OF this case
that s. 900 was spent by the company With
OUT any particular disbursement being
specified.
Ten charges were filed against Robinson
Of which the referee sustained four ana
dismissed six. Those sustained were: I'M
proper payments for plaintiffs witnesses,
iinDroDer pavmcntS to court officerS, clerks
and attendants. improper payments TO
police and approving Disbursements 81
large amounts Of the Metropolitan street
Railwav'S Company'S funds without rea-
payments were for proper purposes
system" Was Farreachins.
The system was farreaching, and in
Guided not only the lower courts OF Man
haitian but extended also to Brooklyn
Taking up some Of the vouchers for eX-
penditures among the attaches OF some OF
these. the referee said that Robinson tried
to explain these as Christmas gifts. but
that the attorney must have been in error
rs the dates of these expenditures were in
March and July. with Christmas long
time behind or long time ahead"
ut viii not do for an attorney" wrote
Justice ingraham. who seeks to JUSTIFY
himself against charges of this KIND 10
show that he has escaped criminal respon-
slbility under the penal law. nor can he
blindly shut his eyes TO system winch
tends to suborn witnesses to procure per-
jured testimony and TO suppress the truth
In ordering that Robinson he disbarred
the court said:
When the respondent took charge Of the
affairs Of the Metropolitan Street Railway
Company as the head Of its legal depart
ment and thereafter conducted the legal
affairs Of that company. he was under no
obligation 10 continue or develop system
the tendency Of which would be TO subvert
tend TO subOtnatiOn Of perjury. We can
not possibly Justify conduct OF this Kind IN
an officer Of the court, and II becomes our
imperative duty 10 say that any attorney
who takes pert in such conduct should no
longer continue a member OF the profession
The respondent is therefore disbarred.
Robinson was admitted to the bar in
1882. and was connected with the Metropoli-
tan company fifteen years prior to 1908
His father was judge OF the Court Of
Common Pleas.
Has Done No Wrong, Says Robinson.
Mr. Robinson issued this statement last
night:
have read with the greatest surprise
the decision of the Appellate Division.
which finds me unfit any longer to prac-
tise law for having defended my client
with the means established as proper by
long continued usage and custom and
without the slightest proof that in any
case whatever any party opposed to my
client was unjustly treated.
This case has been before court and
referee and Bar Association for nearly
four years. and not one OF the thousands
OF Iitigants opposed TO the railway has
tiers charged against me. The whole pros
ecution has rested upon few detectives
vouchers here and there which are capable
Of perfectly proper construction. Not
only are they capable Of such construc-
ton, but my case has been supported by
evidence refuting any presumption to the
coEsraIryso; .siono, conduct has nssn IN ac.
cordance with the ethical rules laid down
by approved writer's or dictated by the
soundest principles which should govern
a lawyer In the discharge of his duty TO
his client. I cannot help feeling. OF