New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-11-09
EX-JUDGE D|SBARRED
Smith Lent, of Westminster,
Had PraCtised Law Since 1875.
ANOTHER SHARES HIS FATE
Accused of Fraud In Obtaining
Admission to Bar-Two At
torneys Severely Censured.

Smith Lent, formerly county Judge Of
Westchester County, was one OF two
lawyers disbarred by the Appellate d.
vision yesterday. The other was Max D.
ouitman. Two other attorneys-william
Z. Kisselburgh, jr., and William G. Null
ugan-were censured by the court on the
charges filed against them. Lent was ad-
mitted 10 the bar in 1875.
The charge filed against the former
Judge by the grievance committee Of the
Bar Association was based on the COM
plant Of client, Maria Stratford, who
was Administrative OF the estate Of her
brother, Thomas Stratford. Miss STRAIT
ford said that in 1909 she gave Lent 81, 900,
which came from a creditor OF her
. brothers. estate, to deposit as security
for her bond as Administrative She said
she also gave the lawyer a check for sS75
from Colonel william Jay for the same
purpose. The money was not used as
Miss Stratford intended II should be, but
she was unable 10 get it back from Lent,
although she demanded it half a dozen
times.
The lawyer admitted he used the money
for his own purposes, but said he had the
permission OF his client TO do so. He said
he owed Miss Stratford 81 $50. and would
pay her as soon as he could. Former
Justice Gildersleeve, who heard the
charge against Lent as onicial referee,
decided against him in his report to the
/ Appellate Division.
Lent was in trouble in 1906 The su-
preme Court in Westchester County COM
mitted him to jail until he paid q judE-
ment OF 1924, obtained against him by
clients for whom he had collected money
that he failed to pay over.
Max D. Quitman, the other disbsrred
attorney, was charged with fraud and de-
ceit In his admission to the bar. Another
charge against him was that he had en-
tered into an agreement with q disbarred
lawyer named Hochstadter, who had been
convicted OF felony, by which Hoch-
stadter practised law in Quitman's name.
Quitman was a law clerk when he was
convicted in 1887 in the Court OF General
Sessions and was sentenced TO Elmlra
Reformatory. He was paroled two years
later, and again took up his clerkship.
In 1891 Quitman applied for admission 10
the bar in Brooklyn. He presented a GER
thcate from the law firm in whose office
he had studied that he was q man OF
good moral character. Quitman was ad-
mitted TO the bar on a certificate that
purported to be signed by Congressman
Goldfogle and the prior record OF the
man was called to the attention Of the
court at the time of his admission.
Presiding Justice Ingraham. in writing
the opinion OF the court, said. This fraud
practised upon the court would OF Itself
require the respondents disbarment."
The court also sustained as cause for dis
barment the charge that Quitman had
permitted Hochstadter to practise in his
name.
The Appellate Division severely cen
sured William <. Kisselburgh, Jr., for col
Letting 500 from the Interborough Rapid
Transit Company for client and paying
the client only SO. The attorney admitted
that he collected the money He said he got
this money mixed with his own and spent
so much that he was unable TO pay his
client the share she was entitled 10 al
the time. He expected TO pay, however
when he returned TO New York from
vacation which he took.
The court said: 1T was no excuse that
he expected TO be able 10 collect money
due him from other persons, and 30 repay
money so Incorporated. The use OF a
clients money for an attorneys personal
benefit is in itself professional misconduct
and a transportation of trust money
which q subsequent restitution does not
condone The respondent must be severe
ly eensured."
William G. Mulligan was censured Tor
entering three Judgments in favor OK
himself and his wife in an action OF e)scS-
ment, which judgments were improper
the court held, and contained provisions
not justified which the court subsequently
vacated and annulled.
A -